Science for the Communal Savage: Most everyone aggresses to assess moral fault, perhaps assuming problems would generally be resolved if only the target were made responsible enough to accept blame. We seem to be animated to behave this way, even when we don't seek any coherent basis for morality that is higher than whatever passes for our immediate desires. Fault tends to be viewed as something that does not belong to oneself, but mainly to others. People generally consider situations reactively, rather than as subjects for systemic analysis.
What is THE FAULT for the movement among the jobless to mass in order to protest as occupiers? Should they mass only to call attention to an ever increasing social problem, or should they seek to lay blame? Should the blame be on (1) themselves, (2) the Democrat establishment, or (3) the Republican opposition to the establishment? Is blame being gamed and, if so, by whom? What is the motivation? First, did the people who are out of work cause their own problem by how they voted? Second, did the Socialists who were elected, because of that to which they are beholden, exacerbate the problem? Third, would problems be lessened if only opponents would not resist trends towards putting the world under socialism? Among those three choices, which most accurately defines the blame? Regardless, does assessing fault have anything much to do with inspiring people to devise and assimilate to more reasonable or moral responsibilities? Have we become too much conditioned to feel entitled to immediate solutions, when the only way forward is to accept the hard work that is entailed in gradual solutions?
Why does our society seem to have lost capacity or leaders to assimilate us to gradual, hard work solutions? We have come to an impasse that will continue to mock us until one side or the other gives way. Science can guide us, but it cannot prove which side, were it to prevail, would most likely best serve us. However, innate good sense suggests to most Conservatives that, if we want a best chance to enhance the freedom and dignity of each citizen, we must (1) defend the borders of our citizenry, (2) staunch the drain of our industry and resources, and (3) reverse and make better sense of the pace of bureaucratic entanglement.
Liberals generally claim not to rely on common sense or traditional religion, but mainly on some kind of syncretic and incoherent combination of natural altruism (philosophy of the noble savage?), yet to be guided only by science. The issue now before the world: Is empathetic regard for the dignity of our fellows best promoted by availing more individual FREEDOM and less governmental and bureaucratic intrusion, or is altrusim best promoted under the "charitable" force of a COLLECTIVE to be ruled by a governing elite? On that fundamental question, the world is at an impasse.
If Liberty Lovers are to prevail, they must inspire each member of the masses to believe in his own independent and spiritual dignity. At the same time, Liberty Lovers must work to remove blinders, so all can more plainly see the nature of the generally misguided and often corrupt purposes of those who seek (1) to collectivize us, (2) to rule us, and (3) to dissolve our nation with the acid of faux free trade with collectivizing gangsters. Has the middle class been at fault for having too long been asleep to the shenanigans and incoherency of the ignorant and the corrupt? It's past time for every decent American of whatever race or creed to take up the Tea Party Person's burden.
2 comments:
We have come to feel entitled to immediate solutions, when the only way forward is to accept the hard work that is entailed in gradual solutions. Why has our society lost leaders with capacity to assimilate us to gradual, hard work solutions? An impasse will continue to mock us until one side or the other gives way. Science can guide us, but it cannot prove which side, were it to prevail, would best serve us. However, innate good sense suggests to most Conservatives that, if we want a best chance to enhance the freedom and dignity of each citizen, we must (1) defend the borders of our citizenry, (2) staunch the drain of our industry and resources, and (3) reverse and make better sense of the pace of bureaucratic entanglement.
Socialist-Liberal-Protesting-Occupiers seem to claim not to rely on common sense or traditional religion, but mainly on some kind of syncretic, incoherent combination of natural altruism (philosophy of the noble savage?), yet to be guided only by science.
The issue now before the world: Is empathetic regard for the dignity of our fellows best promoted by availing more individual FREEDOM and less governmental and bureaucratic intrusion, or is altrusim best promoted under the "charitable" force of a COLLECTIVE to be ruled by a governing elite? How much immediate-safety-net and job-financial-security does The Collective owe every citizen? On that fundamental question, the world is at an impasse.
If Liberty Lovers are to prevail, they must inspire each member of the masses to believe in his own independent and spiritual dignity. At the same time, Liberty Lovers must work to remove blinders, so all can more plainly see the nature of the generally misguided and often corrupt purposes of those who seek (1) to collectivize us, (2) to rule us, and (3) to dissolve our nation with the acid of faux free trade with collectivizing gangsters. The middle class must take up responsibility for having too long been asleep to shenanigans and incoherency of the ignorant and the corrupt. It's time for every decent American of whatever race or creed to take up the Tea Party Person's burden.
Christianity, as an organized faith, began as a cult. Its tent covers many sects, and probably countless individual interpretations. When it assimilated, it was via the conquering of Constantine. Under the Inquisition, it sponsored horrific opressions of freedom of mind, not to mention shocking forms of purely evil torture. Only in the last 250 years or so of its 2000 year existence has it, as an organized church, been tolerant. Many of its fundamental tenets are scientifically whacky, and its dogma is irreconcilable to any kind of bivalent logic. Catholic natons tend to be more socialistic minded than most Conservatives deem reasonable, and much too often confuse forced government taxation and redistribution with "charity."
That said, in practice, because of the wonderful good sense and power of Christianity's figurative language and appeal to emotive purposefulness, and the reasonable intuition that a higher Source does abide (however impervious IT may be to our limited capacity to reduce to technological applications), Christianity has sponsored a Renaissance in good will and civilization, which serves as keystone to the continuous unfolding of American liberty. Thus, Christianity, in main, has withstood tests for good religion. However, it has not withstood those tests because of any innate superiority in logic or monopoly over truth.
Islam is not a religion, because it is not a chosen faith, but a soulless dogma-thing that is forced down throats and hammered into brains. Some sects of Mormonism may qualify as a cult to the extent they promote a kind of polygamy that is antithetical to WesternCiv. (In that vein, so also is modern human secularism a cult for being head over heels in unexamined love with gay marriage.)
As to mainstream LDS, I think the "cult" tag is needlessly offensive. Some horrors (Islam) need to be confronted and offended. However, in this day and age, we have far too many dangerous adversaries to make it smart to insult friends who show themselves, as much or more than those of any other sect, to be solid and independent Americans.
Post a Comment