This article was send to me and I thought it too good to just keep in my records.
The title of it says it all...I hope you enjoy reading it as I did. I just hope that Mr. Obama makes it all better...
Goodbye and Good Riddance (1381 words)
by Paul Waldman*.
Just over two years into George W. Bush's presidency, The American Prospect featured Bush on its cover under the headline, "The Most Dangerous President Ever." [They could have added: “brought to you by the Republican Party and its unthinking adherents”, ed.]. At the time, some probably thought it a bit over the top. But nearly six years later, it's worth taking a moment to reflect on the multifaceted burden that will soon be lifted from our collective shoulders.
Since last week, I have stopped short and shaken my head in amazement every time I have heard the words "President-elect Obama." But it is equally extraordinary to consider that in just a few weeks, George W. Bush will no longer be our president. Let me repeat that: In just a few weeks, George W. Bush will no longer be our president. So though our long national ordeal isn't quite over, it's never too early to say goodbye.
Goodbye, we can say at last, to
• The most powerful man in the world being such a ridiculous buffoon, incapable of stringing together two coherent sentences.
• Cringing with dread every time our president steps onto the world stage, sure he'll say or do something to embarrass us all.
• Being represented by a man who embodies everything our enemies want the people of the world to believe about America -- that we are ignorant, cruel, and only care about foreign countries when we decide to stomp on them.
• His giggle, his shoulder shake, and his nicknames.
• A president who talks to us like we're a nation of fourth-graders.
• Dick Cheney. a man whose naked contempt for democracy contorted his face to a permanent sneer, who spent his days in his undisclosed location with his man-sized safe. And while we're at it,
• Cheney's consigliore David Addington, as malevolent a force as has ever left his trail of slime across our federal institutions.
• The entire band of liars and crooks and thieves who have so sullied the federal government that belongs to us all. And we can even say goodbye to those who have already gone: Rummy and Scooter, to Fredo and Rove, who left tornados of misery in their wake. Also
• The rotating cast of butchers manning the White House's legal abattoir, where the Constitution has been sliced and bled and gutted since September 11.
• The "unitary executive" theory and its claims that the president can do whatever he wants -- even snatch an American citizen off the street and lock him up for life without charge, without legal representation, and without trial.
• The promiscuous use of "signing statements" (1,100 at last count) to declare that the law is whatever the president says it is, and that he'll enforce only those laws he likes.
• An executive branch that treats lawfully issued subpoenas like suggestions that can be ignored.
• Thinking of John Ashcroft as the liberal attorney general.
• The culture of incompetence, where rebuilding a country we destroyed could be turned over to a bunch of clueless 20-somethings with no qualifications save an internship at the Heritage Foundation and an opposition to abortion.
• The "Brownie, you're doin' a heckuva job" philosophy, where vital agencies are turned over to incompetent boobs to rot and decay.
• Handing out the Medal of Freedom as an award for engineering one of the greatest screw-ups of our time.
• An administration that welcomed gluttonous war profiteering, that was only too happy to outsource every government function it could to well-connected contractors who would do a worse job for more money.
• The Bush Doctrine of preemptive war.
• The lust for sending off other people's sons and daughters to fight and kill and die just to show your daddy you're a real man.
• Playing dress-up in flight suits,
• Strutting and posing and desperate sexual insecurity as a driver of American foreign policy.
• The neocons, so sinister and deluded they beg us all to become fevered conspiracy theorists.
• Guantanamo and its kangaroo courts.
• The use of torture as official U.S. government policy, and the immoral ghouls who think you can rename it "enhanced interrogation techniques" and render it any less monstrous.
• The accusation that if you disagree with what the president wants to do, you don't "support the troops."
• Stocking government agencies with people who are opposed to the very missions those agencies are charged with carrying out.
• Putting industry lobbyists in charge of the agencies that are supposed to regulate those very industries.
• Madly giving away public lands to private interests.
• A Food and Drug Administration that acts like a wholly owned subsidiary of the pharmaceutical industry, except when it acts like a wholly owned subsidiary of the fundamentalist puritans who believe that sex is dirty and birth control will turn girls into sluts.
• The "global gag rule," which prohibits any entity receiving American funds from even telling women where they can get an abortion if they need it.
• Vetoing health insurance for poor children but rushing back to Washington to sign a bill to keep alive a woman whose cerebral cortex had liquefied.
• The ban on federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research.
• The philosophy that says that if we give tax cuts to the rich and keep the government from any oversight of the economy, prosperity will eventually trickle down.
• The thirst for privatizing Social Security and to the belief that the success of a social safety-net program is what makes it a threat and should mark it for destruction.
• The war on unions and to a National Labor Relations Board devoted to crushing them.
• The principle of loyalty above all else, that nominates Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court and puts Alberto Gonzales in charge of the Justice Department.
• That Justice Department, the one where U.S. attorneys keep their jobs only if they are willing to undertake bogus investigations of Democrats timed to hit the papers just before Election Day. Goodbye to a Justice Department where graduates of Pat Robertson's law school roam the halls by the dozens, where "justice" is a joke.
• James Dobson and a host of radical clerics picking up the phone and hearing someone in the White House on the other end.
• The most consequential decisions being made on the basis of one man's "gut," a gut that proved so wrong so often.
• The contempt for evidence, to the scorn for intellect and book learnin', to the relentless war on science itself as a means of understanding the world.
Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye to it all.
Though President Obama will be spending most of his time cleaning up the mess George Bush made, we probably won't have Dubya to kick around anymore. It's hard to imagine Bush undertaking some grand philanthropic effort on the scale of the Clinton Global Initiative, or hopping around to international trouble spots like Jimmy Carter. Republicans won't be asking him to speak on their behalf, and publishers are reportedly uninterested in the prospect of a Bush memoir.
His reign of destruction complete, Bush will return to Texas and fill his days with the mundane activities of a retiree -- puttering around the yard, reading some magazines, maybe enjoying that new Xbox Jenna gave him for Christmas ("I'm the Decider, and I decide to spend this afternoon playing Call of Duty 4").
This presidency is finally over. We can say goodbye to an administration whose misdeeds have piled so high that the size of the mountain no longer shocks us. In our lifetimes, we will see administrations of varying degrees of competence and integrity, some we'll agree with and some we won't. But we will probably never see another quite like the one now finally reaching its end, so mind-boggling a parade of incompetence and malice, dishonesty, and immorality. So at last -- at long, long last -- we can say goodbye and good riddance.
*Paul Waldman is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America and the author of Being Right is Not Enough: What Progressives Must Learn From Conservative Success. The views expressed here are his own.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Hi Everyone:
If you have been reading some or all of the articles I have posted on my blog, then you should have a fair idea where I come from. My thinking is both liberal and independent. This is probably because I have been an Ethical Humanist almost all my life.
Some personal background.
My father and mother were of different religions - Roman Catholic and Dutch Reformed respectively - and this caused them to decide that I, their first born, should be raised free from religion. As I grew, I became naturally curious about other people, and it wasn’t long that I became aware of the differences among them. This led me to investigate a variety of religions, including: a Jewish synagogue, but I could not appreciate the goings on there; some Roman Catholic churches during services, and while impressed by the souring interiors, I could not appreciate their rituals either; and finally, a few Protestant churches, but again I could not swallow their rhetoric and so I joined a youth group of the Humanistic Association in The Hague, the Netherlands – the country I am from – in 1949, at the age of 16.
Arriving in the USA in 1957, it took me five years to connect with the Ethical Culture Society of Chicago. It was a long time before I started to appreciate this group and their views on life. Perhaps that was because I did not have the luxury to sit back and contemplate the world as some of the other members. Most were academics, scientists or other learned professionals and staying alive was not a major concern for them. Still, I felt good in their company and enjoyed their thoughtful Sunday lectures (although some went over my head).
So now I have been involved with Ethical Humanism for nearly 50 years. Still, I am ill prepared to organize a fellowship at Lakeside, yet I sense that there is a need for one. Therefore I thought I should use my blog to explain and introduce this movement, borrowing from the writings of Richard Carney of the Chicago Ethical Humanist Society and others.
Ethical Humanism is a view of the world in which reason, compassion, and commitment to ethical values are central and is what it takes to live meaningful and fulfilling lives, while creating a world that is good for all. It is the one thing that is at the heart of all religions. We focus on supporting one another in becoming better people, and on doing good in the world.
Ethical Humanists celebrate diversity, are inspired by the arts, work on being responsible stewards of the environment and to improve the quality of life for all. Ours is a lifelong philosophical and educational guide for a good, happy, informed, and useful life, that focused on the here and now and the values that different kinds of people have in common. We have no doctrine, but we share the ethical values of many traditional religions.
Ethical Humanists come from diverse religious backgrounds, but welcome all persons of good-will. Belief, or lack of belief, in a Supreme Being or personal deity is a personal matter, and we do not engage in, or foster debate on, such unknowable matters.
Ethical Humanists typically meet once a week at a mutually convenient time and place to listen to a speaker on ethical philosophy, science, the humanities, current issues, or a musical or dramatic performance in the fine arts. We also may host public discussions and debates about current issues and explore ethical dilemmas to gain a deeper appreciation and understanding of complex human issues.
We differ from Unitarian-Universalism or other Liberal religions in that our consistent emphasis is on the promotion of humanism. Ethical Humanist Societies often maintain trained and certified volunteers to officiate in weddings, naming ceremonies, or memorial services.
A bit of history.
Humanism can be traced back to ancient India and Greece, but it is the Renaissance that foreshadowed a new view of humanity upon which the “architects” of the Enlightenment forged their revolutionary ideas of reason and equality. A strong humanist expression began to emerge and nurture a monumental societal revolution in thought where individuals actually mattered and were worthy of respect and dignity by reason of their very existence. This process of liberation has proved unstoppable and continues today.
The Ethical Culture Movement in the US began in 1876 by Felix Adler, a transcendentalist and son of the principal rabbi of Manhattan’s Temple Emmanuel, in New York, when he spoke of openness, inclusion, and the need for all persons of good will to join together and work for the benefit of humankind. His vision was a religion for the modern world to bring diverse people together in a unified spirit to accomplish good things.
Ethical Culturists generally share common beliefs about what constitutes ethical behavior and what is good, but individuals are encouraged to develop their own personal understanding of these ideas. Ethical principles are related to deep truths about the way the world works and not arbitrary, but their complexities render the understanding of ethical nuances subject to continued dialogue, exploration, and learning.
Not surprisingly, the movement reflects many of the non-dogmatic, democratic and humanistic ideas of our founding Fathers and early nation-builders and was embraced by Albert Einstein, Isaac Asimov, Jane Addams, Carl Sagan, Kurt Vonnegut, Clarence Darrow, and Ralph Waldo Emerson, Tom Dewey, Jane Addams, Judge Henry Booth and Robert Hutchins, among many others.
The Chicago Ethical Society specifically played a leading role in the formation of the Chicago Urban League, the Legal Aid Society, Visiting Nurse’s Association, and the NAACP. They are still very active, building upon their powerful legacy.
Many of us living here at Lakeside are retired and have time to reflect on life in all its nuances. I suspect that some of us may find ourselves on a spiritual journey as we have outgrown the religion of our birth. It is to those that I would like to offer a comfortable, thoughtful home to not only stimulates the mind, but also to speak to our inner philosophical and emotional needs. Open Circle does that from time to time, but not consistently. As life is complex and uncertain, we believe that we must live with the challenges. On the surface, our approach does not offer the security and instant comfort that religions claim to provide, but we can give each other authentic solace and profound feelings of connection to the mysteries of life and the cosmos. While our approach to life may seem a bit on the heavy side, we also believe in joy, humor, and happiness as we celebrate our shared great journey of life.
If you agree with many of the ideas expressed above, please call me at 765-3076 and let’s talk about organizing an Ethical Humanists Society of Lakeside.
The following is provided by the Ethical Society in New York.
Individual Ethical Society members may or may not believe in a deity or regard Ethical Culture as their religion. In this regard, Ethical Culture is similar to traditional religions such as Buddhism and Taoism, about whose practitioner’s similar statements could be made. Felix Adler said “Ethical Culture is religious to those who are religiously minded, and merely ethical to those who are not so minded.” The movement does consider itself a religion in the sense that
Religion is that set of beliefs and/or institutions, behaviors and emotions which bind human beings to something beyond their individual selves and foster in its adherents a sense of humility and gratitude that, in turn, sets the tone of one's world-view and requires certain behavioral dispositions relative to that which transcends personal interests.
The Ethical Culture 2003 ethical identity statement states:
It is a chief belief of Ethical religion that if we relate to others in a way that brings out their best, we will at the same time elicit the best in ourselves. By the "best" in each person, we refer to his or her unique talents and abilities that affirm and nurture life. We use the term "spirit" to refer to a person's unique personality and to the love, hope, and empathy that exists in human beings. When we act to elicit the best in others, we encourage the growing edge of their ethical development, their perhaps as-yet untapped but inexhaustible worth.
Since around 1950 the Ethical Culture movement has been increasingly identified as part of the modern Humanist movement. Specifically, in 1952, the American Ethical Union, the national umbrella organization for Ethical Culture societies in the United States, became one of the founding member organizations of the International Humanist and Ethical Union. Ethical Culture can be described as a form of non-theistic religious humanism.
While Ethical Culture does not regard its founder's views as necessarily the final word, Adler identified focal ideas that remain important within Ethical Culture. These ideas include:
• Human Worth and Uniqueness - All people are taken to have inherent worth, not dependent on the value of what they do. They are deserving of respect and dignity, and their unique gifts are to be encouraged and celebrated.
• Eliciting the Best - "Always act so as to Elicit the best in others, and thereby yourself" is as close as Ethical Culture comes to having a Golden Rule.
• Interrelatedness - Adler used the term The Ethical Manifold to refer to his conception of the universe as made up of myriad unique and indispensable moral agents (individual human beings), each of whom has an inestimable influence on all the others. In other words, we are all interrelated, with each person playing a role in the whole and the whole affecting each person. Our interrelatedness is at the heart of ethics.
Many Ethical Societies prominently display a sign that says:
"The Place Where People Meet to Seek the Highest is Holy Ground"
Albert Einstein was a supporter of Ethical Culture. On the seventy-fifth anniversary of the New York Society for Ethical Culture he noted that the idea of Ethical Culture embodied his personal conception of what is most valuable and enduring in religious idealism. Humanity requires such a belief to survive, Einstein argued. He observed, "Without 'ethical culture' there is no salvation for humanity."
The impulse that led originally to the formation of Ethical Societies sprang from Adler's profound belief that human life must be treated as sacred and never violated. Adler believed that the emerging influence of secular society and the rise of scientific thinking in the public mind would make traditional religious metaphors less believable and compelling. Adler held that religion needed to evolve to keep pace with the evolution of politics, economics, and science. He was concerned because he believed religious communities to be essential. They are the one institution with the exclusive mission to sanctify life, teach ethical values, and provide a personal experience of living in a caring community. An Ethical Society would fulfill these roles, but in a way that was more in keeping with modernity.
The movement was initiated in 1876 by Dr. Felix Adler in New York City with the founding of the New York Society for Ethical Culture. The society adopted as the condition of membership a positive desire to uphold by example and precept the highest ideals of living and to aid the weaker to attain those ideals. The aims of the society were stated as follows:
• "To teach the supremacy of the moral ends above all human ends and interests;
• "To teach that the moral law has an immediate authority not contingent on the truth of religious beliefs or of philosophical theories;
• "To advance the science and art of right living."
The members of the society were free to follow and profess whatever system of religion they choose, the society confining its attention to the moral problems of life. Adler did himself have an ethical philosophy that deeply influenced how this was approached. A central precept was "Always act so as to elicit the best in others, and thereby in oneself."
In adhering to its social and moral imperatives, the Society quickly initiated two major projects in 1877. First was the establishment of the District Nursing Service, a precursor of the Visiting Nurse Service, which is still active today.
The second project was the founding of a free kindergarten for the children of working people (the first free kindergarten in America), and in 1880 the Workingman's School was chartered, a model institution for general and technical education in which the use of the kindergarten method in the higher branches of study was a distinctive feature. Each of its teachers was a specialist as well as an enthusiast in his subject; the Socratic Method was followed. Pupils over seven were instructed in the use of tools. In 1895, the School was reorganized, becoming The Ethical Culture Schools. An upper school, The Fieldston School, was added in 1928 but is no longer affiliated with the Ethical Culture Society.
Under Dr. Adler's direction, the Society worked to improve conditions in tenement houses, created the Mothers' Society to Study Child Nature (later the Child Study Association), and helped to found the Visiting and Teaching Guild for Crippled Children in 1889. The Society was also instrumental in the formation of the National Child Labor Committee and in calling for the formation of the NAACP. The Chicago Society organized The Bureau of Justice, the organization that preceded the Legal Aid Society. According to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor the pro bono tradition among lawyers started with a speech by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis at an Ethical Society in 1905.
According to a 1906 encyclopedia article, while originally agnostic in feeling, the Society gradually developed into a simple, human brotherhood, united by ethical purpose and a humanistic outlook, and to some degree acquired an influence in distinctively Christian circles in some parts of Europe. But the only approach to a religious service was a Sunday address on topics of the day, preceded and followed by music. Its chief supporters in New York and Philadelphia were Jews, as was its founder and leader, though the society did not in any degree bear the stamp of Judaism.
A similar movement was started in Berlin and today a society exists at Frankfurt am Main.
Societies were established in Cambridge and London, United Kingdom but the only remaining society in that country is the South Place Ethical Society, based at Conway Hall, London.
The largest concentration of Ethical Societies is in the New York metropolitan area, including a dozen or so Societies in New York and New Jersey such as Bergen and Essex Counties, New Jersey, Manhattan and Brooklyn.
Ethical Societies exist in a score or so U.S. cities and counties, including Austin, Texas; Baltimore; Boston; Chapel Hill and Asheville, North Carolina; Chicago; Los Angeles; Rittenhouse Square, Philadelphia; St. Louis and St. Peters, Missouri; Washington, D.C., and Vienna, Virginia. There is a new Ethical Society located in cyberspace, the Ethical Society Without Walls.
Legal challenges
The tax status of Ethical Societies as religious organizations has been upheld in court cases in Washington, D.C. (1957), and in Austin, Texas (2003). The Texas State Appeals Court said of the challenge by the state comptroller, "the Comptroller's test [requiring a group to demonstrate its belief in a Supreme Being] fails to include the whole range of belief systems that may, in our diverse and pluralistic society, merit the First Amendment's protection."
Books
• Ericson, Edward L. The Humanist Way: An Introduction to Ethical Humanist Religion. A Frederick Ungar book, The Continuum Publishing Company. 205 pages, 1988.
• Radest, Howard. Toward Common Ground: The Story of the Ethical Societies in the United States. Ungar, 1969
• Muzzey, David Saville. Ethics as a Religion, 273 pages, 1951, 1967, 1986.
If you have been reading some or all of the articles I have posted on my blog, then you should have a fair idea where I come from. My thinking is both liberal and independent. This is probably because I have been an Ethical Humanist almost all my life.
Some personal background.
My father and mother were of different religions - Roman Catholic and Dutch Reformed respectively - and this caused them to decide that I, their first born, should be raised free from religion. As I grew, I became naturally curious about other people, and it wasn’t long that I became aware of the differences among them. This led me to investigate a variety of religions, including: a Jewish synagogue, but I could not appreciate the goings on there; some Roman Catholic churches during services, and while impressed by the souring interiors, I could not appreciate their rituals either; and finally, a few Protestant churches, but again I could not swallow their rhetoric and so I joined a youth group of the Humanistic Association in The Hague, the Netherlands – the country I am from – in 1949, at the age of 16.
Arriving in the USA in 1957, it took me five years to connect with the Ethical Culture Society of Chicago. It was a long time before I started to appreciate this group and their views on life. Perhaps that was because I did not have the luxury to sit back and contemplate the world as some of the other members. Most were academics, scientists or other learned professionals and staying alive was not a major concern for them. Still, I felt good in their company and enjoyed their thoughtful Sunday lectures (although some went over my head).
So now I have been involved with Ethical Humanism for nearly 50 years. Still, I am ill prepared to organize a fellowship at Lakeside, yet I sense that there is a need for one. Therefore I thought I should use my blog to explain and introduce this movement, borrowing from the writings of Richard Carney of the Chicago Ethical Humanist Society and others.
Ethical Humanism is a view of the world in which reason, compassion, and commitment to ethical values are central and is what it takes to live meaningful and fulfilling lives, while creating a world that is good for all. It is the one thing that is at the heart of all religions. We focus on supporting one another in becoming better people, and on doing good in the world.
Ethical Humanists celebrate diversity, are inspired by the arts, work on being responsible stewards of the environment and to improve the quality of life for all. Ours is a lifelong philosophical and educational guide for a good, happy, informed, and useful life, that focused on the here and now and the values that different kinds of people have in common. We have no doctrine, but we share the ethical values of many traditional religions.
Ethical Humanists come from diverse religious backgrounds, but welcome all persons of good-will. Belief, or lack of belief, in a Supreme Being or personal deity is a personal matter, and we do not engage in, or foster debate on, such unknowable matters.
Ethical Humanists typically meet once a week at a mutually convenient time and place to listen to a speaker on ethical philosophy, science, the humanities, current issues, or a musical or dramatic performance in the fine arts. We also may host public discussions and debates about current issues and explore ethical dilemmas to gain a deeper appreciation and understanding of complex human issues.
We differ from Unitarian-Universalism or other Liberal religions in that our consistent emphasis is on the promotion of humanism. Ethical Humanist Societies often maintain trained and certified volunteers to officiate in weddings, naming ceremonies, or memorial services.
A bit of history.
Humanism can be traced back to ancient India and Greece, but it is the Renaissance that foreshadowed a new view of humanity upon which the “architects” of the Enlightenment forged their revolutionary ideas of reason and equality. A strong humanist expression began to emerge and nurture a monumental societal revolution in thought where individuals actually mattered and were worthy of respect and dignity by reason of their very existence. This process of liberation has proved unstoppable and continues today.
The Ethical Culture Movement in the US began in 1876 by Felix Adler, a transcendentalist and son of the principal rabbi of Manhattan’s Temple Emmanuel, in New York, when he spoke of openness, inclusion, and the need for all persons of good will to join together and work for the benefit of humankind. His vision was a religion for the modern world to bring diverse people together in a unified spirit to accomplish good things.
Ethical Culturists generally share common beliefs about what constitutes ethical behavior and what is good, but individuals are encouraged to develop their own personal understanding of these ideas. Ethical principles are related to deep truths about the way the world works and not arbitrary, but their complexities render the understanding of ethical nuances subject to continued dialogue, exploration, and learning.
Not surprisingly, the movement reflects many of the non-dogmatic, democratic and humanistic ideas of our founding Fathers and early nation-builders and was embraced by Albert Einstein, Isaac Asimov, Jane Addams, Carl Sagan, Kurt Vonnegut, Clarence Darrow, and Ralph Waldo Emerson, Tom Dewey, Jane Addams, Judge Henry Booth and Robert Hutchins, among many others.
The Chicago Ethical Society specifically played a leading role in the formation of the Chicago Urban League, the Legal Aid Society, Visiting Nurse’s Association, and the NAACP. They are still very active, building upon their powerful legacy.
Many of us living here at Lakeside are retired and have time to reflect on life in all its nuances. I suspect that some of us may find ourselves on a spiritual journey as we have outgrown the religion of our birth. It is to those that I would like to offer a comfortable, thoughtful home to not only stimulates the mind, but also to speak to our inner philosophical and emotional needs. Open Circle does that from time to time, but not consistently. As life is complex and uncertain, we believe that we must live with the challenges. On the surface, our approach does not offer the security and instant comfort that religions claim to provide, but we can give each other authentic solace and profound feelings of connection to the mysteries of life and the cosmos. While our approach to life may seem a bit on the heavy side, we also believe in joy, humor, and happiness as we celebrate our shared great journey of life.
If you agree with many of the ideas expressed above, please call me at 765-3076 and let’s talk about organizing an Ethical Humanists Society of Lakeside.
The following is provided by the Ethical Society in New York.
Individual Ethical Society members may or may not believe in a deity or regard Ethical Culture as their religion. In this regard, Ethical Culture is similar to traditional religions such as Buddhism and Taoism, about whose practitioner’s similar statements could be made. Felix Adler said “Ethical Culture is religious to those who are religiously minded, and merely ethical to those who are not so minded.” The movement does consider itself a religion in the sense that
Religion is that set of beliefs and/or institutions, behaviors and emotions which bind human beings to something beyond their individual selves and foster in its adherents a sense of humility and gratitude that, in turn, sets the tone of one's world-view and requires certain behavioral dispositions relative to that which transcends personal interests.
The Ethical Culture 2003 ethical identity statement states:
It is a chief belief of Ethical religion that if we relate to others in a way that brings out their best, we will at the same time elicit the best in ourselves. By the "best" in each person, we refer to his or her unique talents and abilities that affirm and nurture life. We use the term "spirit" to refer to a person's unique personality and to the love, hope, and empathy that exists in human beings. When we act to elicit the best in others, we encourage the growing edge of their ethical development, their perhaps as-yet untapped but inexhaustible worth.
Since around 1950 the Ethical Culture movement has been increasingly identified as part of the modern Humanist movement. Specifically, in 1952, the American Ethical Union, the national umbrella organization for Ethical Culture societies in the United States, became one of the founding member organizations of the International Humanist and Ethical Union. Ethical Culture can be described as a form of non-theistic religious humanism.
While Ethical Culture does not regard its founder's views as necessarily the final word, Adler identified focal ideas that remain important within Ethical Culture. These ideas include:
• Human Worth and Uniqueness - All people are taken to have inherent worth, not dependent on the value of what they do. They are deserving of respect and dignity, and their unique gifts are to be encouraged and celebrated.
• Eliciting the Best - "Always act so as to Elicit the best in others, and thereby yourself" is as close as Ethical Culture comes to having a Golden Rule.
• Interrelatedness - Adler used the term The Ethical Manifold to refer to his conception of the universe as made up of myriad unique and indispensable moral agents (individual human beings), each of whom has an inestimable influence on all the others. In other words, we are all interrelated, with each person playing a role in the whole and the whole affecting each person. Our interrelatedness is at the heart of ethics.
Many Ethical Societies prominently display a sign that says:
"The Place Where People Meet to Seek the Highest is Holy Ground"
Albert Einstein was a supporter of Ethical Culture. On the seventy-fifth anniversary of the New York Society for Ethical Culture he noted that the idea of Ethical Culture embodied his personal conception of what is most valuable and enduring in religious idealism. Humanity requires such a belief to survive, Einstein argued. He observed, "Without 'ethical culture' there is no salvation for humanity."
The impulse that led originally to the formation of Ethical Societies sprang from Adler's profound belief that human life must be treated as sacred and never violated. Adler believed that the emerging influence of secular society and the rise of scientific thinking in the public mind would make traditional religious metaphors less believable and compelling. Adler held that religion needed to evolve to keep pace with the evolution of politics, economics, and science. He was concerned because he believed religious communities to be essential. They are the one institution with the exclusive mission to sanctify life, teach ethical values, and provide a personal experience of living in a caring community. An Ethical Society would fulfill these roles, but in a way that was more in keeping with modernity.
The movement was initiated in 1876 by Dr. Felix Adler in New York City with the founding of the New York Society for Ethical Culture. The society adopted as the condition of membership a positive desire to uphold by example and precept the highest ideals of living and to aid the weaker to attain those ideals. The aims of the society were stated as follows:
• "To teach the supremacy of the moral ends above all human ends and interests;
• "To teach that the moral law has an immediate authority not contingent on the truth of religious beliefs or of philosophical theories;
• "To advance the science and art of right living."
The members of the society were free to follow and profess whatever system of religion they choose, the society confining its attention to the moral problems of life. Adler did himself have an ethical philosophy that deeply influenced how this was approached. A central precept was "Always act so as to elicit the best in others, and thereby in oneself."
In adhering to its social and moral imperatives, the Society quickly initiated two major projects in 1877. First was the establishment of the District Nursing Service, a precursor of the Visiting Nurse Service, which is still active today.
The second project was the founding of a free kindergarten for the children of working people (the first free kindergarten in America), and in 1880 the Workingman's School was chartered, a model institution for general and technical education in which the use of the kindergarten method in the higher branches of study was a distinctive feature. Each of its teachers was a specialist as well as an enthusiast in his subject; the Socratic Method was followed. Pupils over seven were instructed in the use of tools. In 1895, the School was reorganized, becoming The Ethical Culture Schools. An upper school, The Fieldston School, was added in 1928 but is no longer affiliated with the Ethical Culture Society.
Under Dr. Adler's direction, the Society worked to improve conditions in tenement houses, created the Mothers' Society to Study Child Nature (later the Child Study Association), and helped to found the Visiting and Teaching Guild for Crippled Children in 1889. The Society was also instrumental in the formation of the National Child Labor Committee and in calling for the formation of the NAACP. The Chicago Society organized The Bureau of Justice, the organization that preceded the Legal Aid Society. According to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor the pro bono tradition among lawyers started with a speech by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis at an Ethical Society in 1905.
According to a 1906 encyclopedia article, while originally agnostic in feeling, the Society gradually developed into a simple, human brotherhood, united by ethical purpose and a humanistic outlook, and to some degree acquired an influence in distinctively Christian circles in some parts of Europe. But the only approach to a religious service was a Sunday address on topics of the day, preceded and followed by music. Its chief supporters in New York and Philadelphia were Jews, as was its founder and leader, though the society did not in any degree bear the stamp of Judaism.
A similar movement was started in Berlin and today a society exists at Frankfurt am Main.
Societies were established in Cambridge and London, United Kingdom but the only remaining society in that country is the South Place Ethical Society, based at Conway Hall, London.
The largest concentration of Ethical Societies is in the New York metropolitan area, including a dozen or so Societies in New York and New Jersey such as Bergen and Essex Counties, New Jersey, Manhattan and Brooklyn.
Ethical Societies exist in a score or so U.S. cities and counties, including Austin, Texas; Baltimore; Boston; Chapel Hill and Asheville, North Carolina; Chicago; Los Angeles; Rittenhouse Square, Philadelphia; St. Louis and St. Peters, Missouri; Washington, D.C., and Vienna, Virginia. There is a new Ethical Society located in cyberspace, the Ethical Society Without Walls.
Legal challenges
The tax status of Ethical Societies as religious organizations has been upheld in court cases in Washington, D.C. (1957), and in Austin, Texas (2003). The Texas State Appeals Court said of the challenge by the state comptroller, "the Comptroller's test [requiring a group to demonstrate its belief in a Supreme Being] fails to include the whole range of belief systems that may, in our diverse and pluralistic society, merit the First Amendment's protection."
Books
• Ericson, Edward L. The Humanist Way: An Introduction to Ethical Humanist Religion. A Frederick Ungar book, The Continuum Publishing Company. 205 pages, 1988.
• Radest, Howard. Toward Common Ground: The Story of the Ethical Societies in the United States. Ungar, 1969
• Muzzey, David Saville. Ethics as a Religion, 273 pages, 1951, 1967, 1986.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
A Grim Reminder (1178 words)
by John de Waal.
The chapter at the end of the provocative book “Cosmos” by the late Dr. Carl Sagan [Ballantine Books, New York, 1985] is rather pensive because it is here that Dr. Sagan wonders if we, as a species, can survive our propensities for aggression and superstition that the mystics and priests have instilled in us over the millennia. These musings are, if anything, even more appropriate today.
Dr. Sagan writes that, after the human race had been around for about a million years, in about 350 BC, Aristarchus of Samos recognized that it is the Sun, not the Earth, that is the center of our solar system. However, this discovery was not convenient to the fanatical ethnic, religious and/or national establishments, and so it took another 1800 years, until around 1500 AD, that Messrs. Copernicus, Kepler and Newton had the courage to confirm this fact. Thus, you can say, it is only in the last 9/10th of 1% of our time on Earth that we have that knowledge. During times prior we have been accumulating our evolutionary baggage, including our tendency for aggression and ritual, our willingness to submit to leaders, and mistrusting outsiders. Of course, an increasing number of us have developed feelings of compassion and toleration, and we certainly love our children. However, as our history makes clear, the jury is still out on which of our propensities will prevail in our struggle to survive.
Often severely handicapped due to limited experiences we mistrust peoples of different classes, nationalities or skin color, the most recent elections in the US notwithstanding. And so, many nations continue to prepare for nuclear war, ignoring its inevitable economic and de-stabilizing consequences, with the blessings of the religious leaders, while the people acquiesce or are kept ignorant.
Today, one regular atomic bomb has a destructive force of all the bombs used in World War II together (2,000,000 ton of TNT). Russia and the US have almost 26,000 of these weapons; the other eight nuclear countries have about 1,000 between them. 15,000 of these devices are aimed at targets, leaving no place safe on Earth! When a nuclear war would break out, we can kill all 6,000,000,000 of us six times over within six hours. The power to do that is in the hands of people like George W. Bush, a man of questionable ethics and a mediocre intelligence, who through the machinations of an unscrupulous political party and an unthinking electorate was put in this position.
The justification for this huge pile of nuclear armaments is a strategy called the “Balance of Terror”, a strategy not only scary, but downright intolerable. But the arms are there and they do not go away; in fact it is getting worse. Perhaps Mr. Obama will prevail and reverse the situation. The goal should be the total elimination of nuclear bombs, for anything less may yet result in
… An atomic attack! First there will be the blast, followed by the firestorm, than the radiation and finally the fallout. All this will kill most of us outright, but there will be some who survive … for a while. They may be burned, blinded, or mutilated and it will be unlikely that they will find any medical help. Even if they would recover from their injuries, they will experience that the water and the air is poisoned by radioactivity, and that they’ll develop tumors and/or skin cancer because the ozone layer has been damaged. Their children will be born dead or malformed or - since the crops have been destroyed – they’ll succumb to hunger.
This description is based on the survivors of the small bomb by today’s standards (13-18,000 tons of TNT) that was dropped on Hiroshima.
After an all out atomic war, humanity as we know it will no longer exist!
Of course, we hope that this will not happen. After all, the rich and powerful, as well as the mighty leaders who hold our lives in their hands, will also perish (eventually) along with the rest of us. However, leaders with little innate intelligence like Bush, who control the nuclear knob, are driven by the same instincts as the rest of us: ancient reptilian impulses that can trigger a murderous rage. However, unlike us, they are in a position where no one can stop them and they can give their aggression free reign. Thus, a relative slight provocation, a desire to increase their personal wealth or power, can make the above a reality.
Because our leaders typically are demagogs and have control of the organs of mass communication they can whip up the hatred necessary to have the masses follow them, blindly and unquestioning, into war. If you question this, let me remind you of Radovan Karadzic and Slobodan Milosevic, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, and Kim Il Jong, also Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Andreas Papandreou, the Shah of Iran, and Ferdinand Marcos. And let’s not forget the leaders of the Irish Republican Army, the Red Brigade in China, Hezbollah and Hamas in the Near East, Abu Nidal, Basque Fatherland in Spain and the Shining Path. Perhaps the worst ever were Hitler, Stalin and Mao, but George W. Bush should also be comfortable in this company, although he can claim the deaths of only three thousand plus American troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens. This list is far from complete.
Q
uantitative and comparative studies of the readiness and inclination to quarrel, fight, and go to war of Western civilizations and of Confucian civilization in the East, by British mathematician Lewis Fry Richardson, indicate that religious teachings have a lot to do with our propensity to go to war. He concluded that "Confucian-Taoist-Buddhist religions of China of instruction, and in particular of Confucian instruction, stands out as being either itself a pacifier, or else associated with one, and that the comparative peacefulness of China prior to 1911 was the result."
These conclusions were confirmed by Krus and Webb (2001) who stated:"As the religious factors are paramount in shaping value systems, one may look for the alternatives to the mainstream religions, to systems that erect barriers against the group-sponsored violence[such as]: (1) Eastern religions and philosophies as Confucianism, Buddhism and Hinduism, (2) modern Black and Latin American liberation theologies of James H. Cone and Gustavo Gutierrez, and (3) secular value systems as perhaps best represented by Noam Chomsky."
However, it is not too late for mainstream religions everywhere to change their bellicosity into a more conciliatory and peaceful direction, discontinue their torture worship and their perpetuation of myths. They could concentrate on the human condition here and now and educate, through their followers, our governments and leaders. They could join the voices that speak for the human species and amplify the ever growing choirs that challenge the conventional wisdom. Perhaps then we can hope to see a reverse of the nuclear arms race and postpone, or perhaps even avoid, the disaster that is just waiting to happen. Life is a very precious thing and essential to living!
by John de Waal.
The chapter at the end of the provocative book “Cosmos” by the late Dr. Carl Sagan [Ballantine Books, New York, 1985] is rather pensive because it is here that Dr. Sagan wonders if we, as a species, can survive our propensities for aggression and superstition that the mystics and priests have instilled in us over the millennia. These musings are, if anything, even more appropriate today.
Dr. Sagan writes that, after the human race had been around for about a million years, in about 350 BC, Aristarchus of Samos recognized that it is the Sun, not the Earth, that is the center of our solar system. However, this discovery was not convenient to the fanatical ethnic, religious and/or national establishments, and so it took another 1800 years, until around 1500 AD, that Messrs. Copernicus, Kepler and Newton had the courage to confirm this fact. Thus, you can say, it is only in the last 9/10th of 1% of our time on Earth that we have that knowledge. During times prior we have been accumulating our evolutionary baggage, including our tendency for aggression and ritual, our willingness to submit to leaders, and mistrusting outsiders. Of course, an increasing number of us have developed feelings of compassion and toleration, and we certainly love our children. However, as our history makes clear, the jury is still out on which of our propensities will prevail in our struggle to survive.
Often severely handicapped due to limited experiences we mistrust peoples of different classes, nationalities or skin color, the most recent elections in the US notwithstanding. And so, many nations continue to prepare for nuclear war, ignoring its inevitable economic and de-stabilizing consequences, with the blessings of the religious leaders, while the people acquiesce or are kept ignorant.
Today, one regular atomic bomb has a destructive force of all the bombs used in World War II together (2,000,000 ton of TNT). Russia and the US have almost 26,000 of these weapons; the other eight nuclear countries have about 1,000 between them. 15,000 of these devices are aimed at targets, leaving no place safe on Earth! When a nuclear war would break out, we can kill all 6,000,000,000 of us six times over within six hours. The power to do that is in the hands of people like George W. Bush, a man of questionable ethics and a mediocre intelligence, who through the machinations of an unscrupulous political party and an unthinking electorate was put in this position.
The justification for this huge pile of nuclear armaments is a strategy called the “Balance of Terror”, a strategy not only scary, but downright intolerable. But the arms are there and they do not go away; in fact it is getting worse. Perhaps Mr. Obama will prevail and reverse the situation. The goal should be the total elimination of nuclear bombs, for anything less may yet result in
… An atomic attack! First there will be the blast, followed by the firestorm, than the radiation and finally the fallout. All this will kill most of us outright, but there will be some who survive … for a while. They may be burned, blinded, or mutilated and it will be unlikely that they will find any medical help. Even if they would recover from their injuries, they will experience that the water and the air is poisoned by radioactivity, and that they’ll develop tumors and/or skin cancer because the ozone layer has been damaged. Their children will be born dead or malformed or - since the crops have been destroyed – they’ll succumb to hunger.
This description is based on the survivors of the small bomb by today’s standards (13-18,000 tons of TNT) that was dropped on Hiroshima.
After an all out atomic war, humanity as we know it will no longer exist!
Of course, we hope that this will not happen. After all, the rich and powerful, as well as the mighty leaders who hold our lives in their hands, will also perish (eventually) along with the rest of us. However, leaders with little innate intelligence like Bush, who control the nuclear knob, are driven by the same instincts as the rest of us: ancient reptilian impulses that can trigger a murderous rage. However, unlike us, they are in a position where no one can stop them and they can give their aggression free reign. Thus, a relative slight provocation, a desire to increase their personal wealth or power, can make the above a reality.
Because our leaders typically are demagogs and have control of the organs of mass communication they can whip up the hatred necessary to have the masses follow them, blindly and unquestioning, into war. If you question this, let me remind you of Radovan Karadzic and Slobodan Milosevic, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, and Kim Il Jong, also Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Andreas Papandreou, the Shah of Iran, and Ferdinand Marcos. And let’s not forget the leaders of the Irish Republican Army, the Red Brigade in China, Hezbollah and Hamas in the Near East, Abu Nidal, Basque Fatherland in Spain and the Shining Path. Perhaps the worst ever were Hitler, Stalin and Mao, but George W. Bush should also be comfortable in this company, although he can claim the deaths of only three thousand plus American troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens. This list is far from complete.
Q
uantitative and comparative studies of the readiness and inclination to quarrel, fight, and go to war of Western civilizations and of Confucian civilization in the East, by British mathematician Lewis Fry Richardson, indicate that religious teachings have a lot to do with our propensity to go to war. He concluded that "Confucian-Taoist-Buddhist religions of China of instruction, and in particular of Confucian instruction, stands out as being either itself a pacifier, or else associated with one, and that the comparative peacefulness of China prior to 1911 was the result."
These conclusions were confirmed by Krus and Webb (2001) who stated:"As the religious factors are paramount in shaping value systems, one may look for the alternatives to the mainstream religions, to systems that erect barriers against the group-sponsored violence[such as]: (1) Eastern religions and philosophies as Confucianism, Buddhism and Hinduism, (2) modern Black and Latin American liberation theologies of James H. Cone and Gustavo Gutierrez, and (3) secular value systems as perhaps best represented by Noam Chomsky."
However, it is not too late for mainstream religions everywhere to change their bellicosity into a more conciliatory and peaceful direction, discontinue their torture worship and their perpetuation of myths. They could concentrate on the human condition here and now and educate, through their followers, our governments and leaders. They could join the voices that speak for the human species and amplify the ever growing choirs that challenge the conventional wisdom. Perhaps then we can hope to see a reverse of the nuclear arms race and postpone, or perhaps even avoid, the disaster that is just waiting to happen. Life is a very precious thing and essential to living!
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
The Plight of the US Auto Industry.
By John de Waal.
While the prospects for a $25-billion rescue of Detroit's automakers is becoming less certain, because lawmakers are not convinced that the industry deserves the help, GM, Ford and Chrysler and the UAW have two more chances to make their case in 2008. The Democrats seem sympathetic to the plan, but the Republicans raise legitimate questions about how far the government should go. As well, if Congress doesn't act right away, they will most likely not reconvene for a lame-duck session and might wait for the Senate to act, thereby possibly damaging the quintessential US industry.
Thus, to bail-out or not to bail-out is the question. I am an Independent and typically lean towards the Democratic side. I also realize that a decision not to bail-out the US auto industry may result in untold hardship for thousands of workers and do much collateral economic damage besides. Still, I think that the Republicans’ non-interfering stance with marketing processes is essentially better.
The market is a hard task master and can be controlled by government or anyone else no more than can time. Moreover, a bail-out is, at best, justified only if it ‘cures a situation’. However, the bail-out that is proposed will merely postpones the inevitable, i.e. the collapse of the US auto-industry as we know it. It is too late, because the US carmakers have chosen to go for short-term profits by ignoring changing market conditions and passing up market opportunities.
For instance:
Oil on which vehicles depend for power is becoming scarcer daily. This is not a new phenomenon, but the result of finite supplies and rapidly increasing demand worldwide. The US auto industry, rather than responding appropriately, developed and marketed gas guzzling SUVs and trucks. Also, the industry’s bewildering variety of makes and models come at a loss in economies of scale and have resulted in market cannibalism. Finally, instead of making the best product possible, “planned obsolescence” for more profit has cost market share. Of course, there were enormous profits in the not-so-distant past, but these profits disappeared in the collective pockets of management, workers and shareholders, promotion and advertising. Too little was invested in research to improve product, or to study the basic changes in economic circumstances and fuel supplies.
The results of this short-sighted and irresponsible neglect by management are now clear, and handing over a great deal of tax-payers money to this management is throwing good money after bad and foolhardy at best.
Some may say that the economic down-turn is only a temporary glitch and to help this important US industry over this hump makes sense. But the increasing shortage of oil and the increasing demand for it, as well as the pollution the internal combustion engine causes, is not temporary, but is here to stay.
So what will happen if the government stands by and let the industry founder? There must inevitably be realignment in the industry. The need for personal and public transportation will still be there, as well as the movement of materials and merchandise. Parts for replacement will also be needed, and other after-market products will still sell. But there will be changes in society with more people moving away from far-out suburbs and into urban areas, and increased use of rail and other forms of public transportation.
Thus, the auto industry must gear up for making products that are smaller, less or non-polluting, perhaps noiseless as well, and develop schemes that are more efficient than having a vehicle for every person alive. I predict that the street scene in large metropolitan areas across the world will be unrecognizable in less than one generation by those living today.
There is no reason that the industry as it is today cannot respond to these changes, but it is doubtful that they can alter their orientation toward immediate and ever greater returns on investment. It is therefore more likely that - as the automakers as they exist today collapse - their place will be taken over by new entrepreneurs who have a clearer picture of the future of transportation and who are not hamstrung by old contracts and expensive obligations. The existing plants will be refurbished and many of the displaced workers will be able to return to making cars. Universal health care and social security should replace company plans. It seems wiser therefore to use the contemplated bail-out money for facilitating and speeding up this process.
The Plight of the US Auto Industry.
By John de Waal.
While the prospects for a $25-billion rescue of Detroit's automakers is becoming less certain, because lawmakers are not convinced that the industry deserves the help, GM, Ford and Chrysler and the UAW have two more chances to make their case in 2008. The Democrats seem sympathetic to the plan, but the Republicans raise legitimate questions about how far the government should go. As well, if Congress doesn't act right away, they will most likely not reconvene for a lame-duck session and might wait for the Senate to act, thereby possibly damaging the quintessential US industry.
Thus, to bail-out or not to bail-out is the question. I am an Independent and typically lean towards the Democratic side. I also realize that a decision not to bail-out the US auto industry may result in untold hardship for thousands of workers and do much collateral economic damage besides. Still, I think that the Republicans’ non-interfering stance with marketing processes is essentially better.
The market is a hard task master and can be controlled by government or anyone else no more than can time. Moreover, a bail-out is, at best, justified only if it ‘cures a situation’. However, the bail-out that is proposed will merely postpones the inevitable, i.e. the collapse of the US auto-industry as we know it. It is too late, because the US carmakers have chosen to go for short-term profits by ignoring changing market conditions and passing up market opportunities.
For instance:
Oil on which vehicles depend for power is becoming scarcer daily. This is not a new phenomenon, but the result of finite supplies and rapidly increasing demand worldwide. The US auto industry, rather than responding appropriately, developed and marketed gas guzzling SUVs and trucks. Also, the industry’s bewildering variety of makes and models come at a loss in economies of scale and have resulted in market cannibalism. Finally, instead of making the best product possible, “planned obsolescence” for more profit has cost market share. Of course, there were enormous profits in the not-so-distant past, but these profits disappeared in the collective pockets of management, workers and shareholders, promotion and advertising. Too little was invested in research to improve product, or to study the basic changes in economic circumstances and fuel supplies.
The results of this short-sighted and irresponsible neglect by management are now clear, and handing over a great deal of tax-payers money to this management is throwing good money after bad and foolhardy at best.
Some may say that the economic down-turn is only a temporary glitch and to help this important US industry over this hump makes sense. But the increasing shortage of oil and the increasing demand for it, as well as the pollution the internal combustion engine causes, is not temporary, but is here to stay.
So what will happen if the government stands by and let the industry founder? There must inevitably be realignment in the industry. The need for personal and public transportation will still be there, as well as the movement of materials and merchandise. Parts for replacement will also be needed, and other after-market products will still sell. But there will be changes in society with more people moving away from far-out suburbs and into urban areas, and increased use of rail and other forms of public transportation.
Thus, the auto industry must gear up for making products that are smaller, less or non-polluting, perhaps noiseless as well, and develop schemes that are more efficient than having a vehicle for every person alive. I predict that the street scene in large metropolitan areas across the world will be unrecognizable in less than one generation by those living today.
There is no reason that the industry as it is today cannot respond to these changes, but it is doubtful that they can alter their orientation toward immediate and ever greater returns on investment. It is therefore more likely that - as the automakers as they exist today collapse - their place will be taken over by new entrepreneurs who have a clearer picture of the future of transportation and who are not hamstrung by old contracts and expensive obligations. The existing plants will be refurbished and many of the displaced workers will be able to return to making cars. Universal health care and social security should replace company plans. It seems wiser therefore to use the contemplated bail-out money for facilitating and speeding up this process.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
The True Meaning of Christmas. (832 words)
By John de Waal.
Do you ever wonder why you so look forward to Christmas, why your pulse quickens when you see the stores being made ready for the season? Is it your childhood memories: of a Christmas tree decorated with little goats, angles, baubles, strings and candles; of the whole family around the Christmas dinner table or you’re wondering which of those colorful packages beneath the tree would be yours? Perhaps you remember your own children’s glowing faces and the warm feeling of togetherness, or is it something else, like the feeling of being loved and protected?
Yes, Christmas will do that to you and you are not alone in that. That’s why the holiday is celebrated by 96% of all Americans, Christians and non-Christians alike, and the percentage is probably higher among Mexicans. While not quite the same situation here at Lakeside as up north, the days are getting shorter and shorter, the weather downright nasty and the sun makes only rare appearances. The denuded trees are grasping at the sky with bare branches. Everything takes on a somber look. And that’s the reason why this day is so important to us. It is something ingrained in the human body and mind. For years, people suspected that there was a psychological effect of this time of year, but now we know that it is also physiological. It is the reaction of the body and the mind to the low light levels. All living creatures crave light and we’re no different. That’s why the beckoning stores draw us in like a moth to the flame of a candle.
As we moved further away from our tropical birthplace, the impacts of loss of light became more and more noticeable and we had no choice but to weave the "rebirth of the sun" into our social, cultural and religious fabric, as well as into our species' biology. So, we have been celebrating the Winter Solstice for a long time before Christianity came along. And this is as true for the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians and Persians, the Romans, the Norse, the Germans and the Celts, the Pakistanis, the Tibetans, the Chinese, and the Japanese, even the Native North Americans.
At the root of all these celebrations and rituals is the battle between Light and Dark. As Light wins, it drives away the gloom and raises our spirits. And even though Christmas seems a religious feast, it is that only nominally. Just consider the facts:
Christmas, Christ's Mass, Christmas Day or Christmastide, one of the most globally recognized midwinter celebrations is celebrated on December 25 to ostensibly mark the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, even though it is not Jesus' actual date of birth, but December 25 is Winter Solstice, the day when the gradually lengthening nights and shortening days in the northern hemisphere reverse. It was (and is) interpreted as the rebirth of nature, another year of life!
• So, in addition to the Church imposed rituals that include nativity scenes and pageants, in its continuing quest to remind the laity of God’s magnanimity
We celebrate with:
• Good deeds and gift giving in the tradition of St. Nicholas, i.e. by not admitting to being the actual gift giver. This is also observed in many other countries.
In the US it was not long before commercial interests recognized the potential of this gift-giving tradition and so we have Santa Claus or Father Christmas, who is a combination of the Bishop of Myra and elements from pagan Nordic mythology. Santa was first immortalized by illustrator Thomas Nast at the cover of the January 3, 1863 issue of Harper's Weekly, the Journal of Civilizatio, during the height of the uncivilized American Civil War. Then he was commercially utilized by the Coca Cola Company and other enterprises.
• The Christmas tree. This symbol was “invented” in 723 by the Anglo-Saxon missionary St Boniface. He felled the Thor Tree, a huge oak believed to be the home of the God Thor (he made a chapel from its wood), in his quest to convert the northern Germanic tribes to Christianity.
• Lights. Celebratory lighting at the time of winter festivals also predates Christianity and the use of organized illuminations as semi-public entertainment can be traced to the Ancient Chinese.
• Mistletoe. When Norse goddess Frigga’s son was killed by an arrow made of mistletoe by an evil spirit, her tears of white berries brought him back to life. She blessed the plant and made it sacred. Mistletoe in your door will therefore protect you against evil and to kiss beneath it will bring you good luck.
• Holly, the sacred plant of Saturn, which was used as decoration at the Roman Saturnalia festivals on December 25th, another pagan custom.
Thus, virtually all elements that comprise Christmas predate Christianity and are pagan, while the date is a cosmological event that has been usurped by the Church of Rome. We are really celebrating Winter Solstice, but under a different name.
By John de Waal.
Do you ever wonder why you so look forward to Christmas, why your pulse quickens when you see the stores being made ready for the season? Is it your childhood memories: of a Christmas tree decorated with little goats, angles, baubles, strings and candles; of the whole family around the Christmas dinner table or you’re wondering which of those colorful packages beneath the tree would be yours? Perhaps you remember your own children’s glowing faces and the warm feeling of togetherness, or is it something else, like the feeling of being loved and protected?
Yes, Christmas will do that to you and you are not alone in that. That’s why the holiday is celebrated by 96% of all Americans, Christians and non-Christians alike, and the percentage is probably higher among Mexicans. While not quite the same situation here at Lakeside as up north, the days are getting shorter and shorter, the weather downright nasty and the sun makes only rare appearances. The denuded trees are grasping at the sky with bare branches. Everything takes on a somber look. And that’s the reason why this day is so important to us. It is something ingrained in the human body and mind. For years, people suspected that there was a psychological effect of this time of year, but now we know that it is also physiological. It is the reaction of the body and the mind to the low light levels. All living creatures crave light and we’re no different. That’s why the beckoning stores draw us in like a moth to the flame of a candle.
As we moved further away from our tropical birthplace, the impacts of loss of light became more and more noticeable and we had no choice but to weave the "rebirth of the sun" into our social, cultural and religious fabric, as well as into our species' biology. So, we have been celebrating the Winter Solstice for a long time before Christianity came along. And this is as true for the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians and Persians, the Romans, the Norse, the Germans and the Celts, the Pakistanis, the Tibetans, the Chinese, and the Japanese, even the Native North Americans.
At the root of all these celebrations and rituals is the battle between Light and Dark. As Light wins, it drives away the gloom and raises our spirits. And even though Christmas seems a religious feast, it is that only nominally. Just consider the facts:
Christmas, Christ's Mass, Christmas Day or Christmastide, one of the most globally recognized midwinter celebrations is celebrated on December 25 to ostensibly mark the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, even though it is not Jesus' actual date of birth, but December 25 is Winter Solstice, the day when the gradually lengthening nights and shortening days in the northern hemisphere reverse. It was (and is) interpreted as the rebirth of nature, another year of life!
• So, in addition to the Church imposed rituals that include nativity scenes and pageants, in its continuing quest to remind the laity of God’s magnanimity
We celebrate with:
• Good deeds and gift giving in the tradition of St. Nicholas, i.e. by not admitting to being the actual gift giver. This is also observed in many other countries.
In the US it was not long before commercial interests recognized the potential of this gift-giving tradition and so we have Santa Claus or Father Christmas, who is a combination of the Bishop of Myra and elements from pagan Nordic mythology. Santa was first immortalized by illustrator Thomas Nast at the cover of the January 3, 1863 issue of Harper's Weekly, the Journal of Civilizatio, during the height of the uncivilized American Civil War. Then he was commercially utilized by the Coca Cola Company and other enterprises.
• The Christmas tree. This symbol was “invented” in 723 by the Anglo-Saxon missionary St Boniface. He felled the Thor Tree, a huge oak believed to be the home of the God Thor (he made a chapel from its wood), in his quest to convert the northern Germanic tribes to Christianity.
• Lights. Celebratory lighting at the time of winter festivals also predates Christianity and the use of organized illuminations as semi-public entertainment can be traced to the Ancient Chinese.
• Mistletoe. When Norse goddess Frigga’s son was killed by an arrow made of mistletoe by an evil spirit, her tears of white berries brought him back to life. She blessed the plant and made it sacred. Mistletoe in your door will therefore protect you against evil and to kiss beneath it will bring you good luck.
• Holly, the sacred plant of Saturn, which was used as decoration at the Roman Saturnalia festivals on December 25th, another pagan custom.
Thus, virtually all elements that comprise Christmas predate Christianity and are pagan, while the date is a cosmological event that has been usurped by the Church of Rome. We are really celebrating Winter Solstice, but under a different name.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Tillman and Atheism.
The influence of the religious right in the US military.
(This came from the Internet)
Pat Tillman (November 6, 1976 – April 22, 2004), the millionaire NFL Arizona Cardinals player, grew up in a household without a television, but with books and the freedom to play outdoors. A natural born athlete, he led his team to a Football Championship in High School, and helped lead the Sun Devils at Arizona State University to the 1997 Rose Bowl. He graduated summa cum laude and became the Arizona Cardinal's starting safety, competed in marathons and the Iron Man Triathlon. He also volunteered in youth groups and schools, while pursuing his master's degree in history.
Pat married his high school sweetheart in the spring of 2002 and then made a stunning announcement: he was placing his NFL career on hold to become a U.S. Army Ranger with his brother, Kevin! He subsequently served tours in Iraq and in Afghanistan where, on April 22, 2004, he died in action. It took the military five weeks to disclose to his family that Pat had actually died from “friendly fire”.
His family was not satisfied with this explanation and a more thorough investigation was conducted. This concluded that two allied groups fired on each other in the confusion following a nearby explosion. Then, on September 25, 2005, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Tillman had been critical of the Iraq war and did not support President Bush's re-election. This caused right-wingers tp attack the family. Then, nine months later on July 26, 2007, Associated Press received official documents that revealed the results of an autopsy: Tillman was actually murdered! Three shots to the head were fired from a USN Mark 12 Mod X Special Purpose Rifle from 10 yards away! Subsequently, Chris Matthews reported in Hardball that Tillman's death may have been a case of fragging, a term coined in the Vietnam War by the U.S. military, meaning that Tillman was assassinated.
Then, Brig. Gen. Gary M. Jones reported that there were never-before-mentioned US snipers in the group that made up Pat's squad and that they had burned his body armor and uniform after his death in an apparent attempt to hide the fact that he was killed by friendly fire. Several soldiers had been removed from the United States Army Rangers as “punishment”. Later on, the three-star general who had withheld details of Tillman's death from his parents for a number of months because he “had a bad memory”, and Army attorneys, congratulated each other in emails for impeding the criminal investigation into Tillman’s murder.
The motive for his murder are not entirely clear, but Tillman was highly educated, particularly in religious matters, but he was not a believer. Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Kauzlarich, Regimental Executive at the Forward Operating Base Salerno in Khowst, Afghanistan, under which Tillman was serving at the time of his death, was aware of that and called Tillman an atheist. About the Tillman family’s search for the truth he said: “These people [atheists] have a hard time letting it go. It may be because of their religious beliefs" and "When you die, I mean, there is supposedly a better life, right? Well, if you are an atheist and you don’t believe in anything, if you die, what is there to go to? Nothing! You are worm dirt. So for their son to die for nothing and now he is no more... I do not know how an atheist thinks; I can only imagine that would be pretty tough."
Defense Inspector General Thomas Gimble testified that he was "shocked" that Lt. Col. Kauzlarich would make these statements, but Tillman's mother continues to reject the Pentagon's characterization of the officers' offenses as "errors" because several others had said that they made conscious decisions not to tell the Tillman family that fratricide was suspected.
Finally there was an article, in October 2006, in Truthdig, in which Richard Tillman, the frustrated father, wrote:
"Somehow the suspension of habeas corpus is supposed to keep this country safe, somehow torture is tolerated, somehow lying is tolerated, and somehow reason is being discarded for faith, dogma, and nonsense. Hold your spiritual bromides . . . Pat isn't with God. He's f---ing dead. He wasn't religious. So thank you for your thoughts, but he's f---ing dead!”
It is a bitter summing up of the condition into which the USA, founded by enlightened men, and its army, once led by enlightened and brave men, have sunken, thanks to the religious right. May the election of Mr. Obama mark the turning point in our country that leads us out of this morass of stunted thought?
The influence of the religious right in the US military.
(This came from the Internet)
Pat Tillman (November 6, 1976 – April 22, 2004), the millionaire NFL Arizona Cardinals player, grew up in a household without a television, but with books and the freedom to play outdoors. A natural born athlete, he led his team to a Football Championship in High School, and helped lead the Sun Devils at Arizona State University to the 1997 Rose Bowl. He graduated summa cum laude and became the Arizona Cardinal's starting safety, competed in marathons and the Iron Man Triathlon. He also volunteered in youth groups and schools, while pursuing his master's degree in history.
Pat married his high school sweetheart in the spring of 2002 and then made a stunning announcement: he was placing his NFL career on hold to become a U.S. Army Ranger with his brother, Kevin! He subsequently served tours in Iraq and in Afghanistan where, on April 22, 2004, he died in action. It took the military five weeks to disclose to his family that Pat had actually died from “friendly fire”.
His family was not satisfied with this explanation and a more thorough investigation was conducted. This concluded that two allied groups fired on each other in the confusion following a nearby explosion. Then, on September 25, 2005, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Tillman had been critical of the Iraq war and did not support President Bush's re-election. This caused right-wingers tp attack the family. Then, nine months later on July 26, 2007, Associated Press received official documents that revealed the results of an autopsy: Tillman was actually murdered! Three shots to the head were fired from a USN Mark 12 Mod X Special Purpose Rifle from 10 yards away! Subsequently, Chris Matthews reported in Hardball that Tillman's death may have been a case of fragging, a term coined in the Vietnam War by the U.S. military, meaning that Tillman was assassinated.
Then, Brig. Gen. Gary M. Jones reported that there were never-before-mentioned US snipers in the group that made up Pat's squad and that they had burned his body armor and uniform after his death in an apparent attempt to hide the fact that he was killed by friendly fire. Several soldiers had been removed from the United States Army Rangers as “punishment”. Later on, the three-star general who had withheld details of Tillman's death from his parents for a number of months because he “had a bad memory”, and Army attorneys, congratulated each other in emails for impeding the criminal investigation into Tillman’s murder.
The motive for his murder are not entirely clear, but Tillman was highly educated, particularly in religious matters, but he was not a believer. Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Kauzlarich, Regimental Executive at the Forward Operating Base Salerno in Khowst, Afghanistan, under which Tillman was serving at the time of his death, was aware of that and called Tillman an atheist. About the Tillman family’s search for the truth he said: “These people [atheists] have a hard time letting it go. It may be because of their religious beliefs" and "When you die, I mean, there is supposedly a better life, right? Well, if you are an atheist and you don’t believe in anything, if you die, what is there to go to? Nothing! You are worm dirt. So for their son to die for nothing and now he is no more... I do not know how an atheist thinks; I can only imagine that would be pretty tough."
Defense Inspector General Thomas Gimble testified that he was "shocked" that Lt. Col. Kauzlarich would make these statements, but Tillman's mother continues to reject the Pentagon's characterization of the officers' offenses as "errors" because several others had said that they made conscious decisions not to tell the Tillman family that fratricide was suspected.
Finally there was an article, in October 2006, in Truthdig, in which Richard Tillman, the frustrated father, wrote:
"Somehow the suspension of habeas corpus is supposed to keep this country safe, somehow torture is tolerated, somehow lying is tolerated, and somehow reason is being discarded for faith, dogma, and nonsense. Hold your spiritual bromides . . . Pat isn't with God. He's f---ing dead. He wasn't religious. So thank you for your thoughts, but he's f---ing dead!”
It is a bitter summing up of the condition into which the USA, founded by enlightened men, and its army, once led by enlightened and brave men, have sunken, thanks to the religious right. May the election of Mr. Obama mark the turning point in our country that leads us out of this morass of stunted thought?
Saturday, November 8, 2008
The Wages of Ignorance by John de Waal, MBA. (1831 words)
Everyone knows all about economics and everyone knows that, at this time, our economy is not going in the right direction: jobs are going south (or to Asia), prices are going up, and health care is out of reach, yet we spend $685 billion (or $2,300 for every man, woman and child) per year on our military! Even though our president says we are not, almost all pundits say that we are heading for a depression and predict that it will be as bad as, or worse than, the Great Depression of 1929 .
What is the problem? There are many, but I believe that one is our collective conservatism along with two reasons that are closely related: (1) ignorance of the science of economics and (2) abuse of this ignorance by those who we put in power. The latter have been making changes that serve only special interests at the expense of everyone else and clothe these changes such that we actually think that they are good for us. Two examples: (a) since 9/11 we are at war against terrorists, so we invade Iraq, a country wholly innocent of this terrible act, because it is better to “fight the terrorists there than here”. (b) Republicans removed most regulations from the financial industry to set them “free” because that is good for us. But let’s talk a little about economics:
What is economics ?
Economics is “the science which studies human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses”. [Lionel Robbins, 1921]. The subject thus defined involves the study of rational choice theory as these relationships are affected by incentives and resources and it is widely used as an assumption of the behavior of individuals in microeconomic models and analysis. To be sure, all the models assume that individuals choose the best action according to stable preference functions and constraints facing them, but most have additional assumptions. Moreover, the term 'rationality' is different from the colloquial and most philosophical uses of rationality because models of rational choice are diverse.
Proponents of rational choice models do not claim that a model's assumptions are a full description of reality, only that good models can aid reasoning and provide help in formulating falsifiable hypotheses, whether intuitive or not. Successful hypotheses are those that survive empirical tests .
If you had a little trouble reading the above information, than you can appreciate that economics is a science that is not easily understood, let alone worked with. Even professional economists have difficulties in interpreting economic data, are often not able to predict the outcome of any given situation any better than you and I, and they disagree with each other constantly. The science of economics is useful to explain how systems work and what the relationships are between the economic players in society at large afterwards. Should a similar set of circumstances recur, perhaps then the outcome can be predicted with some confidence and its negative consequences ameliorated or prevented. It can also be used to obfuscate matters by authorities.
Methods of economic analysis are applied to virtually all fields that involve people (officials included) who make choices in a social context, including crime, education, the family, politics, finance and war among others. Officials (politicians and legislators) use the outcomes to justify their decisions even though they do not understand the real economic ramifications any better than you and I. Therefore they heed economists that claim to know, provided that these support their decisions. Economists with differing opinions are brushed aside. One of these was John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006), the liberal Canadian-American economist.
Even though Galbraith was a former president of the American Economic Association, he was considered an iconoclast by some of his colleagues and the whole conservative establishment because he rejected technical analyses and mathematical models of neoclassical economics. He insisted that economic activity cannot be distilled into inviolable laws, but remains a complex product of the cultural and political milieu in which it occurs. Specifically, he derided the fact that important factors such as: (1) advertising, (2) the separation between corporate ownership and management, (3) oligopoly , and (4) the influence of government and military spending, are largely neglected because they are not easily amenable to self-evident descriptions. He would admit that classical economic theory works in times of "poverty", but as society becomes relatively more affluent, private business creates consumer wants through the use of advertising and thereby generates an artificial affluence, mostly at the expense of the public sector”. [See: The Affluent Society, Houghton Mifflin Co., New York, NY 10003, 1958]. The conservatives in our country regarded Galbraith as an anachronism and their thinking became evident from the Nixon presidency onwards. Their clamoring for pro-market, anti-regulation, small-government and low-tax orthodoxies became law during the Reagan presidency and they are still the law today.
What was so anachronistic about Galbraith’s ideas? In a word: nothing! His ideas were based on simple common sense and recognition of human moral frailties. But these features are not shared by many of our contemporaries nor are studying statistics and other economic data a typical past-time for most. Thus it is possible that, when decisions are made that are not good for the country, but only for a certain segment, no alarms go off even if some columnists try to make us aware. A good example is the deregulation of the finance industry because it opened the door to many new financial instruments, including those that allowed issuance of sub-prime loans:
What are sub-prime loans? Sub-prime loans are loans made at a higher rate than prime, to borrowers with a poor credit history. Collateral is the house or the car for which the loan is needed, or the employment in case of credit cards. It seems pretty simple, but the practice is controversial because deliberately lending to borrowers who might not be able to meet the terms of these loans will lead to default, seizure of the collateral, and foreclosure. So why do it? Because these loans are risky, profits on them are much higher. That the victims end up in misery is of no concern to the lenders. How can the financial industry get away with it? Because conservatives had removed regulations and governmental oversight, this lucrative practice went unchallenged and was aggressively advertised creating the artificial affluence Galbraith had warned us about in 1958. Where did all the money come from? Because sub-prime lending is so risky, these loans sold by major financial institutions would be “repackaged” into REMIC trusts, making them all but invisible. REMIC trusts are used for issuing bonds, securities and other investment vehicles that are sold to pension funds and other fixed income investments, as well as to the world’s financial markets.
When defaults started to happen and then cascaded into hundreds of thousands of foreclosures over a short period of time, over one hundred major American sub-prime lenders filed for bankruptcy and a restriction of available credit followed. The sub-prime loan industry (mortgages, car loans and credit card balances) made a few people incredibly rich, but when things went south our conservative government did little for the sub-prime victims: on December 6, 2007, President Bush announced a voluntarily and temporary freeze of the mortgages of a limited number of mortgage debtors holding ARMs by the Hope Now Alliance , called for modernizing FHA, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, temporarily reforming the tax code and to pass funding for mortgage counseling. It sounds good, but that’s about it. The plight of the billionaires was addressed more effectively: Bear Sterns was bailed out with $30 billion and there are more billions earmarked for such purposes. There finally is some talk about regulating the industry, albeit after the fact, but if consumer rights attorney Irv Ackelsberg is correct in his prediction to the U.S. Senate Banking Committee that there will be about five million foreclosures over the next few years, it will not only be our economy, but the entire global economy, that may melt-down.
Thus, credit, as a private good, was 'over provided' through advertising without regards to the consequences. Government protects the wealthy and offers a band-aid for the gaping sub-prime loan wound, and there is no money for public goods such as infra-structure etc. Dr. Galbraith’s insight is illustrated by the recent bridge collapse in Minnesota, the poor condition of other bridges, neglected public parks and forests, poorly maintained public schools, the slow recovery of St. Louis after hurricane Katrina, overcrowded hospital emergency rooms, and widespread hunger in the USA, to name but a few.
When Galbraith proposed to regulate consumption of certain products to counter such deficiencies, he drew sharp criticism from conservative ‘free-market’ gurus like Milton Friedman of the Chicago School and Paul Krugman of Princeton University. The former asserted that (1) “Galbraith believed in the superiority of the aristocracy and in its paternalistic authority”, (2) that consumers should not be allowed choice and (3) that all should be determined by those with "higher minds". The latter called Galbraith a "policy entrepreneur who makes unwarranted diagnoses and offers over-simplistic answers to complex economic problems”. Exactly how these two square their disparaging remarks with Reagan’s ‘trickle down’ theories that: (1) provide the wealthy American aristocracy large tax cuts and other loopholes, (2) do not consider consumers, but (3) place a ‘responsibility’ for making the US economy prosper on the “high minds” of the rich, is hard to see, while doing away with regulations and trade unions is hardly a solution for “complex economic problems”. Ken Galbraith’s sophisticated economic governmental interventions which “protect consumers from corporate exploitation and manipulation through advertising and manufactured demand” , while not a textbook ‘model of ‘free markets’, is clearly better.
In view of what is happening, don’t you think that it is high time that we rid the House and Senate of the conservatives who have been using their elected offices to work against their constituents on behalf of their corporate bosses. In their stead we must elect representatives who understand economics and its consequences, know what to do and have the political will to do it. They also must have their priorities in the right order for what is at stake is no less than the immediate future of our country and the world. Therefore they need a mandate to fight the real enemy of the people: the corporate and military power that controls our country. In order to elect such persons we must have an educated electorate that makes a real effort to understand the issues and its ramifications so we can elect our representatives with intelligence. If we do not, we will – once again – elect representatives who will lead us by the nose until frustrations rises to the point where revolution may break out. Such a development can make things worse, but to continue our descent into third-world nation status is also not very good.
Everyone knows all about economics and everyone knows that, at this time, our economy is not going in the right direction: jobs are going south (or to Asia), prices are going up, and health care is out of reach, yet we spend $685 billion (or $2,300 for every man, woman and child) per year on our military! Even though our president says we are not, almost all pundits say that we are heading for a depression and predict that it will be as bad as, or worse than, the Great Depression of 1929 .
What is the problem? There are many, but I believe that one is our collective conservatism along with two reasons that are closely related: (1) ignorance of the science of economics and (2) abuse of this ignorance by those who we put in power. The latter have been making changes that serve only special interests at the expense of everyone else and clothe these changes such that we actually think that they are good for us. Two examples: (a) since 9/11 we are at war against terrorists, so we invade Iraq, a country wholly innocent of this terrible act, because it is better to “fight the terrorists there than here”. (b) Republicans removed most regulations from the financial industry to set them “free” because that is good for us. But let’s talk a little about economics:
What is economics ?
Economics is “the science which studies human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses”. [Lionel Robbins, 1921]. The subject thus defined involves the study of rational choice theory as these relationships are affected by incentives and resources and it is widely used as an assumption of the behavior of individuals in microeconomic models and analysis. To be sure, all the models assume that individuals choose the best action according to stable preference functions and constraints facing them, but most have additional assumptions. Moreover, the term 'rationality' is different from the colloquial and most philosophical uses of rationality because models of rational choice are diverse.
Proponents of rational choice models do not claim that a model's assumptions are a full description of reality, only that good models can aid reasoning and provide help in formulating falsifiable hypotheses, whether intuitive or not. Successful hypotheses are those that survive empirical tests .
If you had a little trouble reading the above information, than you can appreciate that economics is a science that is not easily understood, let alone worked with. Even professional economists have difficulties in interpreting economic data, are often not able to predict the outcome of any given situation any better than you and I, and they disagree with each other constantly. The science of economics is useful to explain how systems work and what the relationships are between the economic players in society at large afterwards. Should a similar set of circumstances recur, perhaps then the outcome can be predicted with some confidence and its negative consequences ameliorated or prevented. It can also be used to obfuscate matters by authorities.
Methods of economic analysis are applied to virtually all fields that involve people (officials included) who make choices in a social context, including crime, education, the family, politics, finance and war among others. Officials (politicians and legislators) use the outcomes to justify their decisions even though they do not understand the real economic ramifications any better than you and I. Therefore they heed economists that claim to know, provided that these support their decisions. Economists with differing opinions are brushed aside. One of these was John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006), the liberal Canadian-American economist.
Even though Galbraith was a former president of the American Economic Association, he was considered an iconoclast by some of his colleagues and the whole conservative establishment because he rejected technical analyses and mathematical models of neoclassical economics. He insisted that economic activity cannot be distilled into inviolable laws, but remains a complex product of the cultural and political milieu in which it occurs. Specifically, he derided the fact that important factors such as: (1) advertising, (2) the separation between corporate ownership and management, (3) oligopoly , and (4) the influence of government and military spending, are largely neglected because they are not easily amenable to self-evident descriptions. He would admit that classical economic theory works in times of "poverty", but as society becomes relatively more affluent, private business creates consumer wants through the use of advertising and thereby generates an artificial affluence, mostly at the expense of the public sector”. [See: The Affluent Society, Houghton Mifflin Co., New York, NY 10003, 1958]. The conservatives in our country regarded Galbraith as an anachronism and their thinking became evident from the Nixon presidency onwards. Their clamoring for pro-market, anti-regulation, small-government and low-tax orthodoxies became law during the Reagan presidency and they are still the law today.
What was so anachronistic about Galbraith’s ideas? In a word: nothing! His ideas were based on simple common sense and recognition of human moral frailties. But these features are not shared by many of our contemporaries nor are studying statistics and other economic data a typical past-time for most. Thus it is possible that, when decisions are made that are not good for the country, but only for a certain segment, no alarms go off even if some columnists try to make us aware. A good example is the deregulation of the finance industry because it opened the door to many new financial instruments, including those that allowed issuance of sub-prime loans:
What are sub-prime loans? Sub-prime loans are loans made at a higher rate than prime, to borrowers with a poor credit history. Collateral is the house or the car for which the loan is needed, or the employment in case of credit cards. It seems pretty simple, but the practice is controversial because deliberately lending to borrowers who might not be able to meet the terms of these loans will lead to default, seizure of the collateral, and foreclosure. So why do it? Because these loans are risky, profits on them are much higher. That the victims end up in misery is of no concern to the lenders. How can the financial industry get away with it? Because conservatives had removed regulations and governmental oversight, this lucrative practice went unchallenged and was aggressively advertised creating the artificial affluence Galbraith had warned us about in 1958. Where did all the money come from? Because sub-prime lending is so risky, these loans sold by major financial institutions would be “repackaged” into REMIC trusts, making them all but invisible. REMIC trusts are used for issuing bonds, securities and other investment vehicles that are sold to pension funds and other fixed income investments, as well as to the world’s financial markets.
When defaults started to happen and then cascaded into hundreds of thousands of foreclosures over a short period of time, over one hundred major American sub-prime lenders filed for bankruptcy and a restriction of available credit followed. The sub-prime loan industry (mortgages, car loans and credit card balances) made a few people incredibly rich, but when things went south our conservative government did little for the sub-prime victims: on December 6, 2007, President Bush announced a voluntarily and temporary freeze of the mortgages of a limited number of mortgage debtors holding ARMs by the Hope Now Alliance , called for modernizing FHA, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, temporarily reforming the tax code and to pass funding for mortgage counseling. It sounds good, but that’s about it. The plight of the billionaires was addressed more effectively: Bear Sterns was bailed out with $30 billion and there are more billions earmarked for such purposes. There finally is some talk about regulating the industry, albeit after the fact, but if consumer rights attorney Irv Ackelsberg is correct in his prediction to the U.S. Senate Banking Committee that there will be about five million foreclosures over the next few years, it will not only be our economy, but the entire global economy, that may melt-down.
Thus, credit, as a private good, was 'over provided' through advertising without regards to the consequences. Government protects the wealthy and offers a band-aid for the gaping sub-prime loan wound, and there is no money for public goods such as infra-structure etc. Dr. Galbraith’s insight is illustrated by the recent bridge collapse in Minnesota, the poor condition of other bridges, neglected public parks and forests, poorly maintained public schools, the slow recovery of St. Louis after hurricane Katrina, overcrowded hospital emergency rooms, and widespread hunger in the USA, to name but a few.
When Galbraith proposed to regulate consumption of certain products to counter such deficiencies, he drew sharp criticism from conservative ‘free-market’ gurus like Milton Friedman of the Chicago School and Paul Krugman of Princeton University. The former asserted that (1) “Galbraith believed in the superiority of the aristocracy and in its paternalistic authority”, (2) that consumers should not be allowed choice and (3) that all should be determined by those with "higher minds". The latter called Galbraith a "policy entrepreneur who makes unwarranted diagnoses and offers over-simplistic answers to complex economic problems”. Exactly how these two square their disparaging remarks with Reagan’s ‘trickle down’ theories that: (1) provide the wealthy American aristocracy large tax cuts and other loopholes, (2) do not consider consumers, but (3) place a ‘responsibility’ for making the US economy prosper on the “high minds” of the rich, is hard to see, while doing away with regulations and trade unions is hardly a solution for “complex economic problems”. Ken Galbraith’s sophisticated economic governmental interventions which “protect consumers from corporate exploitation and manipulation through advertising and manufactured demand” , while not a textbook ‘model of ‘free markets’, is clearly better.
In view of what is happening, don’t you think that it is high time that we rid the House and Senate of the conservatives who have been using their elected offices to work against their constituents on behalf of their corporate bosses. In their stead we must elect representatives who understand economics and its consequences, know what to do and have the political will to do it. They also must have their priorities in the right order for what is at stake is no less than the immediate future of our country and the world. Therefore they need a mandate to fight the real enemy of the people: the corporate and military power that controls our country. In order to elect such persons we must have an educated electorate that makes a real effort to understand the issues and its ramifications so we can elect our representatives with intelligence. If we do not, we will – once again – elect representatives who will lead us by the nose until frustrations rises to the point where revolution may break out. Such a development can make things worse, but to continue our descent into third-world nation status is also not very good.
852 words.
Conscience is invincible
It sets our priorities
Cannot be subjugated
And must be free.
A law higher than God’s!
By John de Waal, MBA
“The Secular Conscience” by Dr. Austin Dacey, recently published by Prometheus Books of Amherst, New York, is a fascinating, but difficult read. I suspect that it will never reach the broad audiences it should even though the argument in it is important to all of us.
It is about the defense of our freedoms of conscience and thought and it urges that everything, including religion, is debated in the public domain. The need for this is urgent for organized religions are attacking secular values as never before and do not tolerate dissent. However, if not for free conscience, how can anyone really tell what to believe?
The Roman Catholic Church continues to maintain a firm grip on their organization and the production of Church teachings. Modern Evangelicals also demand that the Scriptures be taken literally, not just by their followers, but by everyone else. Islam too insists that their views cannot be tampered with. The twelve cartoons on the Prophet Muhammad, published in Denmark in September 2005, that started Muslim mass demonstrations in Beirut, Pakistan, and Palestine, and burned down the Danish embassy in Damascus are clear attacks on our conscience and our freedom to think. However, the U.S. and British press not only does not acknowledge this, they responded tepidly and even apologized! The cartoon on the right is one of the twelve that so upset Muslims. It depicts Muhammad with a donkey that is loaded with explosives. It does not warrant the violent outbursts.
However, the cartoons do illustrate that there is a connection between the teachings of Muhammad and violence, that Islamic ideology is an inspiration for jihad terrorists like Osama bin Laden, et al. However, Christians have also been committing atrocities in the name of their God for centuries, from the crusades to the inquisition to lynching by the KKK etc.
Islam’s reactions to the cartoons were pure madness and should be denounced as such. We should stand shoulder to shoulder with the Danish to defend our mutual freedoms of speech and thought, and not just to the jihadists and the ayatollahs , but also to the Roman Catholic Church that stated in The Catholic News Service (7/26/07) that “freedom of expression does not mean offending religions” and the right-wing Evangelicals whose actions hurt humanity.
“Why do liberals in the West not speak up and denounce the Catholic ‘gag orders’ and Islam’s capital punishments for apostasy and blasphemy? Why do they not defend our secular values?” The reasons, says Dacey, are based in our privacy- and the liberty fallacies. The first causes liberals to believe that matters of conscience are private and beyond criticism, and the second says that conscience is immune to critical inquiry and our shared evaluative norms.
It is time to reject both these fallacies and open honest, consistent, rational, legal, and moral discussions between religion and secular values in ‘public’: There should be many more editorial opinions and letters to the editor, TV talk' programs, and blogs on the Internet, dealing with the issues, they should penetrate individual dining rooms and office break rooms, reach the houses of worship, and finally local government that can bring about changes that are long overdue.
Our conscience is shaped by reasons that are universal, is independent of/and prior to religion, is part of every human being and enables us to live an ethical life. As long as we try to reach a decision, our conscience is private thing, but when we act on it we are in the public domain.
We live in a pluralistic society and are more alike than unalike. We discuss moral values. Our religious leaders are not the authority on these. President Lincoln made that clear when he was deliberating the emancipation of the slaves when he said: “God’s followers are of many names and tribes, so citizens must appeal to a law higher than God’s if they wish to coexist in peace”. That higher law is the Rule of Conscience!
Ever since Saint Augustine (354 – 430 AD), whose belief that people cannot be good without divine aid, conscience has been suppressed. It remained thus until John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) analyzed the human mind and confirmed that conscience and thought are our own, that only when we act on them must we face the consequences.
To blaspheme is a victimless act and religions cannot simply demand that their critics obey by their orders which are, after all, mere opinions of individuals who claim to speak for their God. Unbelievers typically respect religious people for their convictions and it behooves religious people to return this courtesy.
Let us seriously debate issues of conscience and moral values in public. We may rediscover truths, set human judgment right and we will all be better for that. Let’s debate what is good and what is not and reach an understanding of, and respect for one another’s thoughts in the realization that our conscience is a law that is higher than God’s!
.
Conscience is invincible
It sets our priorities
Cannot be subjugated
And must be free.
A law higher than God’s!
By John de Waal, MBA
“The Secular Conscience” by Dr. Austin Dacey, recently published by Prometheus Books of Amherst, New York, is a fascinating, but difficult read. I suspect that it will never reach the broad audiences it should even though the argument in it is important to all of us.
It is about the defense of our freedoms of conscience and thought and it urges that everything, including religion, is debated in the public domain. The need for this is urgent for organized religions are attacking secular values as never before and do not tolerate dissent. However, if not for free conscience, how can anyone really tell what to believe?
The Roman Catholic Church continues to maintain a firm grip on their organization and the production of Church teachings. Modern Evangelicals also demand that the Scriptures be taken literally, not just by their followers, but by everyone else. Islam too insists that their views cannot be tampered with. The twelve cartoons on the Prophet Muhammad, published in Denmark in September 2005, that started Muslim mass demonstrations in Beirut, Pakistan, and Palestine, and burned down the Danish embassy in Damascus are clear attacks on our conscience and our freedom to think. However, the U.S. and British press not only does not acknowledge this, they responded tepidly and even apologized! The cartoon on the right is one of the twelve that so upset Muslims. It depicts Muhammad with a donkey that is loaded with explosives. It does not warrant the violent outbursts.
However, the cartoons do illustrate that there is a connection between the teachings of Muhammad and violence, that Islamic ideology is an inspiration for jihad terrorists like Osama bin Laden, et al. However, Christians have also been committing atrocities in the name of their God for centuries, from the crusades to the inquisition to lynching by the KKK etc.
Islam’s reactions to the cartoons were pure madness and should be denounced as such. We should stand shoulder to shoulder with the Danish to defend our mutual freedoms of speech and thought, and not just to the jihadists and the ayatollahs , but also to the Roman Catholic Church that stated in The Catholic News Service (7/26/07) that “freedom of expression does not mean offending religions” and the right-wing Evangelicals whose actions hurt humanity.
“Why do liberals in the West not speak up and denounce the Catholic ‘gag orders’ and Islam’s capital punishments for apostasy and blasphemy? Why do they not defend our secular values?” The reasons, says Dacey, are based in our privacy- and the liberty fallacies. The first causes liberals to believe that matters of conscience are private and beyond criticism, and the second says that conscience is immune to critical inquiry and our shared evaluative norms.
It is time to reject both these fallacies and open honest, consistent, rational, legal, and moral discussions between religion and secular values in ‘public’: There should be many more editorial opinions and letters to the editor, TV talk' programs, and blogs on the Internet, dealing with the issues, they should penetrate individual dining rooms and office break rooms, reach the houses of worship, and finally local government that can bring about changes that are long overdue.
Our conscience is shaped by reasons that are universal, is independent of/and prior to religion, is part of every human being and enables us to live an ethical life. As long as we try to reach a decision, our conscience is private thing, but when we act on it we are in the public domain.
We live in a pluralistic society and are more alike than unalike. We discuss moral values. Our religious leaders are not the authority on these. President Lincoln made that clear when he was deliberating the emancipation of the slaves when he said: “God’s followers are of many names and tribes, so citizens must appeal to a law higher than God’s if they wish to coexist in peace”. That higher law is the Rule of Conscience!
Ever since Saint Augustine (354 – 430 AD), whose belief that people cannot be good without divine aid, conscience has been suppressed. It remained thus until John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) analyzed the human mind and confirmed that conscience and thought are our own, that only when we act on them must we face the consequences.
To blaspheme is a victimless act and religions cannot simply demand that their critics obey by their orders which are, after all, mere opinions of individuals who claim to speak for their God. Unbelievers typically respect religious people for their convictions and it behooves religious people to return this courtesy.
Let us seriously debate issues of conscience and moral values in public. We may rediscover truths, set human judgment right and we will all be better for that. Let’s debate what is good and what is not and reach an understanding of, and respect for one another’s thoughts in the realization that our conscience is a law that is higher than God’s!
.
America the Beautiful. (960 words)
By John de Waal. (Note: I wrote this in December 2007, I am sorry that I was profetic).
The United States is one of the most beautiful countries in the world, not only because of what nature has provided, or because of its fine highway system that make much of this natural beauty accessible, but also because of the beautiful, warm-hearted, trusting and loving people that populate this great land. It is not surprising that Americans are proud of what they have and what they have accomplished, from making their homes and communities as comfortable as they have to saving the world from “Nazism”, “Communism” and now “Terrorism”. Of course, our current struggle with terrorists is not over yet, but we will win it too, because our president says so. Besides, we are the strongest country in the world, the only super power out there; we are “Number One”, all our media tell us that all the time…
Unfortunately, most Americans cannot seem to look much farther than the length of their own nose. All they see is a car or two in their drive way, a large television screen in their living room, a computer for the kids in the den and a cell phone in their hand. Life in the U.S. has become soft with everything instant: from fast food restaurants, complete frozen meals in the supermarkets, heated blankets on our bed, immediate personal and family entertainment on TV, I pods and computers, and a way to justify it all by saying thanks to God for everything. Thus, with all the luxury on the one hand and with God on the other, how can anything be wrong?
Of course, not all Americans enjoy the same standard of living. We all know that life is a game, based on competition. The best man probably wins. We prepare for the rat race in play lots, or Junior League for the more elite, and work our way up through the educational system and into the work place. The elite go to selected schools, not to get smart, but to make contacts. After all, it is not what you know, but who you know that will get you somewhere. Non-elites, but bestowed by nature with agility or ability, such as basketball or football players get free scholarships and are multi-millionaires by the time they are in their late twenties; and the more beautiful people among us who can talk and smile at the same time capture places in front of TV cameras and make millions as well. Politicians, in or out of office, above and below the table, and on the speaker’s circuit also make millions, while all the rest of our population hopes to one day win the Lotto and get their millions that way. We seem to have put all our trust in luck, savvy, even violence, and of course God, but not on our brains.
Therefore it is no wonder that education in the U.S. is wanting and we are now in 49th place in literacy in the world; that American businesses must spend more than $30 billion per year on remedial training for workers, to teach them things they should have learnt in school; and that we are no longer in the “Top Ten” anymore in any category, we are not even close! Instead, we are 54th in health care in the world and six times as many of our people die each year than died on 9/11 because they have no health insurance! We are a shade above Mexico in childhood poverty, which is in 23rd place and dead last in the world in that category, and we are below Cuba in infant mortality! Collectively we seriously beat up nearly a million of our kids each year, nearly half of us think that violence and torture is OK, and we spend more money on gambling than on movies, books and music combined. Meanwhile, twelve million American families go hungry and the Bush administration cuts programs for education, social welfare and even police! These and other facts were reported in recent months by the New York Times, CNN, Associated Press and USA Today, among others.
If you think that these facts are depressing, add to them that virtually no one saves anymore and that more people are deeper in debt than ever before and that includes our government because they must borrow $2 billion each day from our competitors to stay afloat. Forty percent of our country’s wealth is now in Japanese, Chinese, Taiwanese and South Korean hands. However, no one is ringing any alarm bells and people continue to believe that everything is fine. In fact, American people are so ignorant about the precarious condition of our otherwise beautiful country that, of all the people eligible to vote, more than a third of do not bother to exercise this valuable franchise! Is it any wonder that none of our legislators are getting worked up?
If you are reading this article and do not believe a word of it, or you shrug your shoulders and say: “what has this to do with me?”, then you know what is wrong with us! But if this information will cause you to turn off your favorite soap opera, throw you cell phone in the trash and start up your computer to check on the allegations that are being made here, then please go to http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid%3A255074, read Michael Ventura’s piece “Letters at 3 AM” and then turn your anger at your representative in Congress and your Senator. Confront him or her with the facts and ask them what he or she is going to do about it. Of course, if you don’t care, just continue to sit back and you will probably not have to wait very long anymore to see our beautiful country collapse under the weight of debt, internal and external, and see the delusion which our government, corporations and media together have build-up being shattered beyond repair.
Happy New Year!
By John de Waal. (Note: I wrote this in December 2007, I am sorry that I was profetic).
The United States is one of the most beautiful countries in the world, not only because of what nature has provided, or because of its fine highway system that make much of this natural beauty accessible, but also because of the beautiful, warm-hearted, trusting and loving people that populate this great land. It is not surprising that Americans are proud of what they have and what they have accomplished, from making their homes and communities as comfortable as they have to saving the world from “Nazism”, “Communism” and now “Terrorism”. Of course, our current struggle with terrorists is not over yet, but we will win it too, because our president says so. Besides, we are the strongest country in the world, the only super power out there; we are “Number One”, all our media tell us that all the time…
Unfortunately, most Americans cannot seem to look much farther than the length of their own nose. All they see is a car or two in their drive way, a large television screen in their living room, a computer for the kids in the den and a cell phone in their hand. Life in the U.S. has become soft with everything instant: from fast food restaurants, complete frozen meals in the supermarkets, heated blankets on our bed, immediate personal and family entertainment on TV, I pods and computers, and a way to justify it all by saying thanks to God for everything. Thus, with all the luxury on the one hand and with God on the other, how can anything be wrong?
Of course, not all Americans enjoy the same standard of living. We all know that life is a game, based on competition. The best man probably wins. We prepare for the rat race in play lots, or Junior League for the more elite, and work our way up through the educational system and into the work place. The elite go to selected schools, not to get smart, but to make contacts. After all, it is not what you know, but who you know that will get you somewhere. Non-elites, but bestowed by nature with agility or ability, such as basketball or football players get free scholarships and are multi-millionaires by the time they are in their late twenties; and the more beautiful people among us who can talk and smile at the same time capture places in front of TV cameras and make millions as well. Politicians, in or out of office, above and below the table, and on the speaker’s circuit also make millions, while all the rest of our population hopes to one day win the Lotto and get their millions that way. We seem to have put all our trust in luck, savvy, even violence, and of course God, but not on our brains.
Therefore it is no wonder that education in the U.S. is wanting and we are now in 49th place in literacy in the world; that American businesses must spend more than $30 billion per year on remedial training for workers, to teach them things they should have learnt in school; and that we are no longer in the “Top Ten” anymore in any category, we are not even close! Instead, we are 54th in health care in the world and six times as many of our people die each year than died on 9/11 because they have no health insurance! We are a shade above Mexico in childhood poverty, which is in 23rd place and dead last in the world in that category, and we are below Cuba in infant mortality! Collectively we seriously beat up nearly a million of our kids each year, nearly half of us think that violence and torture is OK, and we spend more money on gambling than on movies, books and music combined. Meanwhile, twelve million American families go hungry and the Bush administration cuts programs for education, social welfare and even police! These and other facts were reported in recent months by the New York Times, CNN, Associated Press and USA Today, among others.
If you think that these facts are depressing, add to them that virtually no one saves anymore and that more people are deeper in debt than ever before and that includes our government because they must borrow $2 billion each day from our competitors to stay afloat. Forty percent of our country’s wealth is now in Japanese, Chinese, Taiwanese and South Korean hands. However, no one is ringing any alarm bells and people continue to believe that everything is fine. In fact, American people are so ignorant about the precarious condition of our otherwise beautiful country that, of all the people eligible to vote, more than a third of do not bother to exercise this valuable franchise! Is it any wonder that none of our legislators are getting worked up?
If you are reading this article and do not believe a word of it, or you shrug your shoulders and say: “what has this to do with me?”, then you know what is wrong with us! But if this information will cause you to turn off your favorite soap opera, throw you cell phone in the trash and start up your computer to check on the allegations that are being made here, then please go to http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid%3A255074, read Michael Ventura’s piece “Letters at 3 AM” and then turn your anger at your representative in Congress and your Senator. Confront him or her with the facts and ask them what he or she is going to do about it. Of course, if you don’t care, just continue to sit back and you will probably not have to wait very long anymore to see our beautiful country collapse under the weight of debt, internal and external, and see the delusion which our government, corporations and media together have build-up being shattered beyond repair.
Happy New Year!
Thomas Paine: the early years.
'Without the pen of Paine, the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain.' John Adams.
In England, Paine failed as a stay maker, sailor, teacher, excise man, and tobacconist, because his thoughts were on writing and debating.
Ben Franklin met Paine in England at one of Paine’s discussions. This meeting changed world history. After Franklin befriended Paine, he suggested Paine move to the Colonies and gave him a Letter of Introduction. Paine’s moving to America brought about the start of the American Revolution.
Paine was a student of John Locke and the Enlightenment. He improved upon Locke’s ideas concerning government and the division between government and religion. His support of equal rights for women and the abolition of slavery were not well received by either the church or government. His concepts of getting rid of royalty and creating a democratic form of government was treasonous. The colonial intelligentsia was giving up on Christianity and going to the scientific religion of Deism and so, the embers of revolution were glowing when Paine wrote:
Serious Thought.
From the Pennsylvania Journal, October 18, 1775.
“When I reflect on the horrid cruelties exercised by Britain in the East Indies - How thousands perished by artificial famine - How religion and every manly principle of honor and honesty were sacrificed to luxury and pride - When I read of the wretched natives being blown away, for no other crime than because, sickened with the miserable scene, they refused to fight – When I reflect on these and a thousand instances of similar barbarity, I firmly believe that the Almighty, in compassion to mankind, will curtail the power of Britain.
And when I reflect on the use she hath made of the discovery of this new world - that the little paltry dignity of earthly kings bath been setup in preference to the great cause of the King of Kings - That instead of Christian examples to the Indians, she hath basely tampered with their passions, imposed on their ignorance, and made them tools of treachery and murder - And when to these and many other melancholy reflections I add this sad remark, that ever since the discovery of America she hath employed herself in the most horrid of all traffics, that of human flesh, unknown to the most savage nations, hath yearly (without provocation and in cold blood) ravaged the hapless shores of Africa, robbing it of its unoffending inhabitants to cultivate her stolen dominions in the West.
When I reflect on these, I hesitate not for a moment to believe that the Almighty will finally separate America from Britain. Call it independence or what you will, if it is the cause of God and humanity it will go on.
And when the Almighty shall have blest us, and made us a people dependent only upon Him, then may our first gratitude be shown by an act of continental legislation, which shall put a stop to the importation of negroes for sale, soften the hard fate of those already here, and in time procure their freedom.”
Paine signed Humanus to the document because his committed treason against England. Humanus: pertains to man, humane, humane, and cultured. The pen struck at the heart of the English rule.
The pamphlet was a cry of freedom from Britain and the embryo of the US Declaration of Independence. And Paine’s pen would continue to outline the democratic republic of the USA and save the revolution many times.
A Lakeside Truth Seeker
Hank Shiver
________________________________________
'Without the pen of Paine, the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain.' John Adams.
In England, Paine failed as a stay maker, sailor, teacher, excise man, and tobacconist, because his thoughts were on writing and debating.
Ben Franklin met Paine in England at one of Paine’s discussions. This meeting changed world history. After Franklin befriended Paine, he suggested Paine move to the Colonies and gave him a Letter of Introduction. Paine’s moving to America brought about the start of the American Revolution.
Paine was a student of John Locke and the Enlightenment. He improved upon Locke’s ideas concerning government and the division between government and religion. His support of equal rights for women and the abolition of slavery were not well received by either the church or government. His concepts of getting rid of royalty and creating a democratic form of government was treasonous. The colonial intelligentsia was giving up on Christianity and going to the scientific religion of Deism and so, the embers of revolution were glowing when Paine wrote:
Serious Thought.
From the Pennsylvania Journal, October 18, 1775.
“When I reflect on the horrid cruelties exercised by Britain in the East Indies - How thousands perished by artificial famine - How religion and every manly principle of honor and honesty were sacrificed to luxury and pride - When I read of the wretched natives being blown away, for no other crime than because, sickened with the miserable scene, they refused to fight – When I reflect on these and a thousand instances of similar barbarity, I firmly believe that the Almighty, in compassion to mankind, will curtail the power of Britain.
And when I reflect on the use she hath made of the discovery of this new world - that the little paltry dignity of earthly kings bath been setup in preference to the great cause of the King of Kings - That instead of Christian examples to the Indians, she hath basely tampered with their passions, imposed on their ignorance, and made them tools of treachery and murder - And when to these and many other melancholy reflections I add this sad remark, that ever since the discovery of America she hath employed herself in the most horrid of all traffics, that of human flesh, unknown to the most savage nations, hath yearly (without provocation and in cold blood) ravaged the hapless shores of Africa, robbing it of its unoffending inhabitants to cultivate her stolen dominions in the West.
When I reflect on these, I hesitate not for a moment to believe that the Almighty will finally separate America from Britain. Call it independence or what you will, if it is the cause of God and humanity it will go on.
And when the Almighty shall have blest us, and made us a people dependent only upon Him, then may our first gratitude be shown by an act of continental legislation, which shall put a stop to the importation of negroes for sale, soften the hard fate of those already here, and in time procure their freedom.”
Paine signed Humanus to the document because his committed treason against England. Humanus: pertains to man, humane, humane, and cultured. The pen struck at the heart of the English rule.
The pamphlet was a cry of freedom from Britain and the embryo of the US Declaration of Independence. And Paine’s pen would continue to outline the democratic republic of the USA and save the revolution many times.
A Lakeside Truth Seeker
Hank Shiver
________________________________________
A Challenge to the Church. (1233 words)
By John de Waal.
I decided to re-read the thin, but dense, book “A Brief History of Time” by Professor Stephen Hawking [Bantam Books, New York, 1990]. This book talks about “The Big Bang” and “Black Holes”, Einstein’s Law of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, along with a few other things in an effort to explain how things began in our Cosmos and where we are heading. The book pulls together the thoughts and works of many other scientists around the world who are working on the various aspects of this challenge.
While it is probably true that no one but Dr. Hawking “could have put these mathematically formidable subjects more clearly” [Chicago Tribune], the book is a tough read, for me at least. However, more than a million hardcover copies of the book were sold and more than nine million of the paperback version. The book was on the New York Times bestseller list for 100 weeks and on the London Sunday Times best-seller list for more than four years! That shows that I have a lot of company in wanting to understand everything around us.
The information Dr. Hawking provides does satisfy much of the curiosity about how our universe was formed, how the stars and planets developed, and where we came from. However, many of the findings and discoveries in the book infringe on the realm that is designated by religion as belonging to God. Indeed, in 1981, the Roman Catholic Church organized a convention of leading scientists at the Vatican to both learn the state of science and to give Pope John II the opportunity to tell the scientists how far they can go and where they must stop. Big Bang, for instance, is out of bounds because that is the work of God. The pope apparently had not heard Dr. Hawking, who was there and who had just lectured on that subject.
In spite of Pope John’s admonishments, science has forced ahead in exploring all avenues in their quest for a complete unified theory of everything in the universe. Thus, the idea developed that “space and time may form a closed surface without boundaries or an edge, that our universe is really completely self-contained, and that there is neither beginning nor end” (Pp.140-141). This, of course, leads to the inevitable conclusion that there is no need for a Creator! When Hawking later wrote: “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a Creator,” [but] "I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science, laws that may have been decreed by God, but who does not intervene to break the laws", thereby essentially confirming his initial statement that there is no obvious need for God, while attempting to placate the Church.
My renewed interest seems to coincide with those of the Vatican, because – as I write these words - another five-day Vatican meeting has convened. It started Friday, October 31, 2008 and is themed "Scientific Insights into the Evolution of the Universe and of Life." Eighty scientists, philosophers and theologians are participating.
Before the discussions started, Pope Benedict XVI laid down the ground rules by affirming his belief that “the world did not emerge out of chaos, but was intentionally created by "the First Being." In order to develop and evolve, the world must first be and thus have come from nothing into being; it must be created by the First Being who is such by essence!"
Benedict went on to assert that the Creator was not only involved in the origins of the universe, but continually sustains the development of life and the world. “The Creator”, he said, “is the cause of every being and all becoming.”
One may wonder on what this rhetoric is based and why the Pope finds it necessary to influence the thinking of the scientists and philosophers in his audience. Does he really believe that, because he is the Pope, he knows better than mere men, that only he can guide civilization and regulate scientific inquiry as he sees fit?
Of course, the Church has, for centuries, held their beliefs infallible. Humility was never part of their domain. For instance:
In the 17th century, the geocentric Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, who proceeded against Giordano Bruno, whom he had tortured to death, and Galileo Galilei, whom he put on house arrest until dead, for their scientific discoveries pertaining to our solar system. He dismissed their findings and stated flatly: “To affirm that the Sun is really fixed in the center of the heavens and that the Earth revolves around it is not only irritating to the theologians and philosophers, but (is) injuring our holy faith…”
We all now recognize that as arrogant and conceited. Still, the Vatican never did seem to realize that their ideas are mere opinion that can, and are overturned by observation and experimentation. In spite of his efforts to thwart science, Bellarmine was canonized by his Church in 1930!
One may wonder why Pope Benedict is taking the same risk. Is he afraid that science will succeed in discovering ‘the complete theory that will enable us to understand and explain everything’? Science is getting closer, it is just a matter of time and when science reaches that point mankind will understand the “Mind of God”. Does Benedict consider that dangerous to the continuation of the faith, will this expose his Church for what it is? Is that why, in spite of all the secular and scientific progress, the Church continues to attempt to control humanity, as they have done from the very beginning?
The Church still relies on fear to get their way. ‘God is omnipotent and knows and sees everything all humans think and do. There is no place to hide. Only if you live by the rules of the Church will you go to heaven, otherwise you go to hell, probably sooner than later’. Science, inadvertently show convincingly that there is no need for God, that there is no Creator, not now and there never was. When that truth becomes general knowledge, the underpinnings of the Church will be severely compromised.
Yet, this need not be. The Church should recognize the emerging influence of secular thinking due to the rise of science; they should rethink their mission, instead of fighting progress. “Religion needs to evolve to keep pace with the evolution of politics, economics, and science”, said Dr. Felix Adler of the Ethical Culture Society in New York , way back in 1876. However, the Church continues to hang on to its ancient rituals and beliefs. In spite of its size and influence, its foundations will crumble when the evidence provided by science becomes too overwhelming and humanity will suffer a great loss because alternates such as ethical culture and similar religious developments will not be developed enough to fill the gap!
Therefore, instead of the Church fighting “Secular Humanism” (a name invented by its fundamentalist critics) they should realize that they and all religious communities are essential for their real and exclusive mission is, or should be: 1. to sanctify life, 2. to teach ethical values, and 3. to provide a personal experience of living in a caring community. This can be done without the use of traditional religious metaphors and fear.
Teaching the supremacy of moral ends over human ends and interests, moral laws that have immediate authority, helping rather than hindering the march of knowledge, and educating people everywhere in the art of living just, is the future. This would make the priestly profession more relevant, challenging and certainly more satisfying. To Church should concentrate on developing in man a philosophy that will always make him "Act so as to encourage the best in others and by so doing develop the best in him/her self."(Adler). This will have a noticeable and positive impact on this world of ours because it will reduce greed, injustice, arrogance and violence.
Therefore, Pope Benedict, why don’t you and the Church join the 21st century and make your great organization a force for good!
By John de Waal.
I decided to re-read the thin, but dense, book “A Brief History of Time” by Professor Stephen Hawking [Bantam Books, New York, 1990]. This book talks about “The Big Bang” and “Black Holes”, Einstein’s Law of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, along with a few other things in an effort to explain how things began in our Cosmos and where we are heading. The book pulls together the thoughts and works of many other scientists around the world who are working on the various aspects of this challenge.
While it is probably true that no one but Dr. Hawking “could have put these mathematically formidable subjects more clearly” [Chicago Tribune], the book is a tough read, for me at least. However, more than a million hardcover copies of the book were sold and more than nine million of the paperback version. The book was on the New York Times bestseller list for 100 weeks and on the London Sunday Times best-seller list for more than four years! That shows that I have a lot of company in wanting to understand everything around us.
The information Dr. Hawking provides does satisfy much of the curiosity about how our universe was formed, how the stars and planets developed, and where we came from. However, many of the findings and discoveries in the book infringe on the realm that is designated by religion as belonging to God. Indeed, in 1981, the Roman Catholic Church organized a convention of leading scientists at the Vatican to both learn the state of science and to give Pope John II the opportunity to tell the scientists how far they can go and where they must stop. Big Bang, for instance, is out of bounds because that is the work of God. The pope apparently had not heard Dr. Hawking, who was there and who had just lectured on that subject.
In spite of Pope John’s admonishments, science has forced ahead in exploring all avenues in their quest for a complete unified theory of everything in the universe. Thus, the idea developed that “space and time may form a closed surface without boundaries or an edge, that our universe is really completely self-contained, and that there is neither beginning nor end” (Pp.140-141). This, of course, leads to the inevitable conclusion that there is no need for a Creator! When Hawking later wrote: “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a Creator,” [but] "I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science, laws that may have been decreed by God, but who does not intervene to break the laws", thereby essentially confirming his initial statement that there is no obvious need for God, while attempting to placate the Church.
My renewed interest seems to coincide with those of the Vatican, because – as I write these words - another five-day Vatican meeting has convened. It started Friday, October 31, 2008 and is themed "Scientific Insights into the Evolution of the Universe and of Life." Eighty scientists, philosophers and theologians are participating.
Before the discussions started, Pope Benedict XVI laid down the ground rules by affirming his belief that “the world did not emerge out of chaos, but was intentionally created by "the First Being." In order to develop and evolve, the world must first be and thus have come from nothing into being; it must be created by the First Being who is such by essence!"
Benedict went on to assert that the Creator was not only involved in the origins of the universe, but continually sustains the development of life and the world. “The Creator”, he said, “is the cause of every being and all becoming.”
One may wonder on what this rhetoric is based and why the Pope finds it necessary to influence the thinking of the scientists and philosophers in his audience. Does he really believe that, because he is the Pope, he knows better than mere men, that only he can guide civilization and regulate scientific inquiry as he sees fit?
Of course, the Church has, for centuries, held their beliefs infallible. Humility was never part of their domain. For instance:
In the 17th century, the geocentric Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, who proceeded against Giordano Bruno, whom he had tortured to death, and Galileo Galilei, whom he put on house arrest until dead, for their scientific discoveries pertaining to our solar system. He dismissed their findings and stated flatly: “To affirm that the Sun is really fixed in the center of the heavens and that the Earth revolves around it is not only irritating to the theologians and philosophers, but (is) injuring our holy faith…”
We all now recognize that as arrogant and conceited. Still, the Vatican never did seem to realize that their ideas are mere opinion that can, and are overturned by observation and experimentation. In spite of his efforts to thwart science, Bellarmine was canonized by his Church in 1930!
One may wonder why Pope Benedict is taking the same risk. Is he afraid that science will succeed in discovering ‘the complete theory that will enable us to understand and explain everything’? Science is getting closer, it is just a matter of time and when science reaches that point mankind will understand the “Mind of God”. Does Benedict consider that dangerous to the continuation of the faith, will this expose his Church for what it is? Is that why, in spite of all the secular and scientific progress, the Church continues to attempt to control humanity, as they have done from the very beginning?
The Church still relies on fear to get their way. ‘God is omnipotent and knows and sees everything all humans think and do. There is no place to hide. Only if you live by the rules of the Church will you go to heaven, otherwise you go to hell, probably sooner than later’. Science, inadvertently show convincingly that there is no need for God, that there is no Creator, not now and there never was. When that truth becomes general knowledge, the underpinnings of the Church will be severely compromised.
Yet, this need not be. The Church should recognize the emerging influence of secular thinking due to the rise of science; they should rethink their mission, instead of fighting progress. “Religion needs to evolve to keep pace with the evolution of politics, economics, and science”, said Dr. Felix Adler of the Ethical Culture Society in New York , way back in 1876. However, the Church continues to hang on to its ancient rituals and beliefs. In spite of its size and influence, its foundations will crumble when the evidence provided by science becomes too overwhelming and humanity will suffer a great loss because alternates such as ethical culture and similar religious developments will not be developed enough to fill the gap!
Therefore, instead of the Church fighting “Secular Humanism” (a name invented by its fundamentalist critics) they should realize that they and all religious communities are essential for their real and exclusive mission is, or should be: 1. to sanctify life, 2. to teach ethical values, and 3. to provide a personal experience of living in a caring community. This can be done without the use of traditional religious metaphors and fear.
Teaching the supremacy of moral ends over human ends and interests, moral laws that have immediate authority, helping rather than hindering the march of knowledge, and educating people everywhere in the art of living just, is the future. This would make the priestly profession more relevant, challenging and certainly more satisfying. To Church should concentrate on developing in man a philosophy that will always make him "Act so as to encourage the best in others and by so doing develop the best in him/her self."(Adler). This will have a noticeable and positive impact on this world of ours because it will reduce greed, injustice, arrogance and violence.
Therefore, Pope Benedict, why don’t you and the Church join the 21st century and make your great organization a force for good!
Jesus, Factional or Fictional? (1415 words)
By John de Waal
I received an article on the Internet: “Is Jesus God[JdW1] ?” in which the author talks about Jesus as if he knew him personally. He describes Jesus’ greatness as ‘obvious to all who saw and heard him (except the Roman authorities and the Jewish hierarchy, of course, who viewed him as a crackpot). Jesus was telling the people that ‘you and I are special, part of a grand cosmic scheme, and I am the center of it all!’
He noted that Jesus preached almost entirely outside the established religious framework, but ‘was identical with his message, claimed to have the power to forgive sins and to be divine, [therefore] he had to be God!’ Then, as on second thought, he asks rhetorically: “Did Jesus really claim to be God (the Creator), or was his divinity something invented or assumed by the New Testament authors[JdW2] ?”
The New Testament was altered by the First Council of Nicaea in 325 to provide the answer. Also called the Greek Testament, the Greek Scriptures, or the New Covenant, this book has seen many changes. It is compiled of 27 books that were written in colloquial Greek by as many authors anywhere from 45 to 140 years after Jesus supposedly lived. Eventually these were translated into Latin, combined and edited down over a period of several centuries. Then, around 1604, King James had The New Testament translated into English by 47 scholars.
The Universal Catholic Church became the official state religion of
There have been other adjustments to The New Testament, leaving a book with many inconsistencies and stories that are open to varying interpretations. For instance:
‘Scholars’ think that Jesus was a great moral teacher[JdW3] who “taught pure and sublime ethics, throwing the moral precepts and maxims of the wisest men of antiquity into the shade”. Indeed, according to Joseph Klausner in Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus’ ’Sermon on the Mount’ is “the most superlative of human ethics ever” as well as ”the origin of equal rights” .
I am not a ‘Jesus scholar’, but I think that that is stretching things a bit. Moreover, understand that Jesus never wrote anything himself nor are there any records, official or unofficial, that verify his existence. Everything he was supposed to have said has come down to us through Paul and other third parties as much as hundreds of years after he was supposed to have lived. So, at best, the whole document is based on hearsay!
Yet, The New Testament is the ethical guide by which Christians live. To convince others that their book is just, they find examples to back this up. In this article President Jefferson is used as an example:
“After slicing away every passage that suggested Jesus’ divine nature, Jefferson had a Jesus who was no more and no less than a good, ethical guide”.
However, it wasn’t the wisdom of Christ that Jefferson was after, but a crib sheet to help him deal with the many pesky priests that asked him for favors.
The author also claims that Mr. Jefferson’s ‘Christian ideals’ are reflected in the Declaration of Independence in the words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights …”
This is not true either! Mr. Jefferson, a Deist, was a staunch follower of John Locke and the Continental philosophers. It is their thinking and ideals on individual liberty that are reflected in the opening words of this document!
Far from being a clear and consistent guide for life, the contents of The New Testament’ is hard to accept by any normal thinking person. The so-called ‘bible truths’ are all based on a blind belief in God that have been forced down the throats of people for such a long time that they are now accepted by the masses without any thought given to their verity.
Even though the New Testament describes an active, wise person who did wonders and died a horrendous death, none of the authorities of his day knew anything about him. Therefore, there is real doubt that Jesus actually lived and certainly that he established Christianity, while preaching only outside the established religion, invites incredulity!
A much more plausible scenario is that Jesus is a fictional character, created to illustrate a particularly belief system, developed by Paul of Tarsus (ca 5 - 64 AD). Paul was a bright and educated Jew, born in
The Jews and other peoples around the
Thus, I believe that Jesus was a carefully crafted character by Paul, who made him real and human through his preaching, as well as the Son of God who was friendly towards Caesar (“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”. Matthew 22:21). Paul obviously did a good job because Christians still believe in Jesus as a person who lived and died to absolve them of their sins, and is ‘proof’ that God made us for a purpose (happiness?).
Certainly, for many Christian religions Happiness in the form of money and power is the goal, and achieved through clever marketing based on human frailty and fear. For instance:
We know that we will all die someday. However, religion tells us that we do not really die, but simply ‘transition’ to ‘life here after’, or ‘eternal life’. This is the purpose of the Story of the Resurrection: i.e. Jesus died for our sins so we can go to this after life. Some people believe this idea so fervently that they postpone things until after they are dead, like living.
So, is religion just a huge fraud that has been perpetuated on humanity for a long time? Some apologists say that religion creates social cohesion by creating in and out groups as well as a priestly class with super-authority (because they speak for God) that shapes behavior in both prescriptive and motivational ways, most efficiently. They go so far as to equate religion with civilization. It certainly is big business with lots of money and power and most of humanity is addicted to it! As Dostoevsky in The Brothers Karamazov said: “There would have been no civilization if they [the priesthood] hadn't invented God”.
It seems that for most of us it is far easier to go along with religion and (make) believe, than to go against it and declare not to believe. To leave religion is to leave civilization as they have always known it. Indeed, it takes courage to make that step: courage to stand on one’s own feet, courage to think independently, courage to face the realities of life and courage to take responsibility for everything one does and doesn’t do. This is daunting, but it is liberating! And once taken, one can then determine what makes sense and what doesn’t, what is the truth and what isn’t and you will be more fully human.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if more people were to step out of the shadow of religion into the sun light of human potential? Religion may lose its stranglehold on American life and our country can become that “shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving peoples everywhere."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)