What is Truth?

For most of us, this seems a relatively simple question.  Truth is factually correct information.  But is it?  How do we separate truth from fiction, or fact from opinion? In this age of an overabundance of data, sorting through this to find the truth is a daunting task, and one most of us can’t be bothered with. We tend to take shortcuts to find an answer we like, rather than wonder about the truth. 

A quick search of the question, (what is truth?) returns some interesting perspectives.  From a religious standpoint, we can find: “Truth is a self-expression of God.”  Psychology Today says: “Truth is a property not so much of thoughts and ideas but more properly of beliefs and assertions.” Then, of course, you have the exchange between Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson in the movie “A Few Good Men.”

But what happens to society when people no longer believe in the institutions we’ve developed to provide for a stable social construct? 

Does the court system deal in truth? Perhaps, but in our advocacy system, the defense is actually charged with obscuring the facts to present an alternative version of reality. So, in a sense, it is left to the jury to decide what is true and what is not.  Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they don’t.

Does the entertainment industry deal in truth? I think most would agree it does not. But we seek those whose celebrity comes from that industry to tell us what is true. This leads me to a core problem with our social construct today. Is the way we receive our information from a fact-based system, or an entertainment-based one? Are any of the public “news” channels focused on truth, or do they only offer the opinions they believe will draw the greatest number of viewers?

We talk about our first amendment right to “free speech” but the constitution only places limits on what rules the government can implement, and the idea of “free speech” will mean not all speech is true. Whose job is it to decide what is true and what is not? The most recent pandemic of COVID-19 played out against this backdrop. There were politicians, activists, entertainers, and experts all weighing in on what was true. For the average person, it fell down to who could, or should, you believe?

As the virus played out in its mutating forms we saw, in real time, the struggle to control the flow of information and the increasing polarization of opinions based not on a seeking of the truth, but on the control of the population, allegedly to control the virus. Did it work?  I’m not sure how you could possibly tell that one method was superior to another since, as far as I can tell, seeking truth was never an objective.  What I do know is as of today, here in the United States, there is a statistically insignificant difference between states that exerted maximum control of the populations, and states that began to ease restrictions as soon as they could.  The top four most populous states in the nation are California, Texas, Florida, and New York.  The top four states in the nation for COVID deaths are California, Texas, Florida, and New York.

As we look towards our government and social media, do the institutions operate to provide truth, or do they operate to control and limit power?  What is the truth?

Evolution

Charles Darwin created quite a stir in the mid-nineteenth century with the publication of his thesis “On the Origin of Species” suggesting the evolution of the various animal species, including man, spring from common ancestry. His theory has been widely embraced by the scientific communities, and widely condemned by fundamentalist religions. As with most theories their proponents can point to examples of how this must be true, and the opposition -- examples to question its legitimacy. Let’s put those arguments aside and use the theory to talk only of the evolution of mankind.

How long has man (homo) been around? According to Wikipedia (so it must be true, right?), some form of man began roughly eight million years ago, give or take a few hundred millennia.  From those early days, we’ve evolved from our chimpanzee cousins into the fully evolved Homo Sapiens of today.  Or have we?  Have we really evolved?

The earliest recorded histories we find are paintings or etchings of the early survival of mankind.  Hunting, gathering, and religious festivals celebrating their survival.  It wasn’t until about 3,000 BCE (Before the Current Era)[1], that mankind sat down and decided we should have some simpler way to record what was going on.  

According to the worldwide web of all things, the Sumerians were the first to record their history, but some believe the hieroglyphics found in the tomb of Egypt’s Scorpion 1 (AKA Scorpion King or Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson) predate those early Sumerian writings by a few hundred years.

Somewhere along the way, we find the earliest history of war is dated back to about 9,000 BCE when the city of Jericho (in what is now called the West Bank between Israel and Jordan) was destroyed by people who coveted their modern mud huts.  So here we are some 11,000 years later still fighting over the same piece of parched earth.  We’ve certainly found new and more lethal ways to wage war and to kill each other for the power, and domination of our fellow man, but it doesn’t appear the inherently human qualities of greed, envy, lust, and jealousy have evolved very much in the last eleven millennium. So, tell me, how have we evolved?

Looking back on the ancient empires of Egypt, Babylon, Samaria, Greece, Rome China, and India, we see the evolution of man from simple creatures of survival to the various classes of poor and privileged.  The privileged had free time on their hands so they invented leisure where they could dabble in various arts like literature painting, theater, and sculpting.  They studied the heavens to find out the right time to have the unprivileged head out to the fields to plant and harvest, and of course, they convinced the unprivileged they were too important to not obey. Being a god came in handy in the early days of empires. The privileged were able to convince their followers of the destruction of the earth if they did not fall in line. Today we see the destruction of the earth is a mere decade (maybe two) away unless we fall in line and do what the privileged say.  Again, have we evolved?  If so, how?  Back then they had gods for everything and they could not be challenged or their whims questioned.  Now we have science, but like the gods, it cannot be questioned.

Finally, when our survival depended on our abilities and death was a constant companion, we mourned the loss of children stillborn, or children who died from decease, accidents, or violence.  Families grew and supported each other, Parents became grandparents and remained close to help as long as they could and then to be cared for by the younger generations as they became more dependent. Now we have a society that cries about the inequality of mankind but places their own elderly into remote nursing homes.  We have groups of people whose passion is to save the wildlife, but at the same time think nothing of helping someone destroy human life. We shut down our economy (and vilified the President for not acting however the left thought he should) over a virus that has taken over 400,000 lives, but think nothing of destroying 800,000 lives a year because the mother and father choose not to accept the responsibility of its creation. So how have our values for what makes us human evolved? 

---

[1] BCE is the currently fashionable term for what used to be BC (Before Christ) noting the greatest event in human history. 

The Foundations of Society

Philosophers have written on society since the beginnings of philosophical thought.  I am not in any of their leagues. My philosophy class in college made my head hurt and the instructor learned pretty quickly not to expect great insight into Plato, Socrates, or even Thomas Paine coming from me. Since those years of study, I’ve grown some but my opinions are based more on practical observation than on a deep understanding of the theoretical.

This paper will address my feelings of our society and the underpinnings of that society. To a large extent, the form of government is far less important to that discussion than the pillars upon which that government rests. There are all kinds of governments available to mankind, and history teaches us about them. We learn of their successes and the failures that ultimately brought them and the society they led to oblivion.

We’ve grown from small family groups into tribes and then larger collections.  We’ve established nations based on the belief the ruler was actually a god, and we’ve established nations based on the belief the ruler was appointed by God. We’ve developed systems of government where a religious scholar tells us what God wants us to do, and we’ve created societies where the rejection of God is central and a collective of powerful will rule.

As I’ve traveled, I come away with the belief all successful societies are kind of like a simple stool. The number of legs holding up the stool will decide how stable the stool is. It is, in my opinion, the same with society. It is a simple analogy but for my simple mind a good one. A one-legged stool cannot stand by itself, if balance is just right it may remain upright for a brief time, but it will ultimately tumble over. The two-legged stool is similarly handicapped. For a stool to be balanced and stable there must be at least three legs. The social structure of society makes up those three legs upon which a government sits. If those legs become unequal then society and the government both become unbalanced. It that problem continues the society and government ultimately topple and the people must find a new relationship that will bring those pillars into balance.

I believe the first leg of society traces itself back to the origins of mankind. It is what has allowed us to become the Alpha predator on the planet. The family is all-important. It is the structure that creates the next generation, it is the structure that nourishes the young, protects them from harm, teaches them their role in the family, and in turn their role in a larger society. Without family to care for, and teach the young human is left to its own devices to find its way in the world.  It will develop its own moral code, center its needs on the individual rather than the greater needs of the family, and become an unpredictable element. I might well be wrong but what I see in our society with the advent of the nuclear family (in the post-World War years) is a series of destructive impacts, each one seemingly minor, but taken in their totality hugely detrimental to the family unit as a stabilizing pillar of the larger society. There are almost as many causes for this phenomenon and everyone will have their own opinion as to the legitimacy of those causes. I’ll leave it to you to determine if you a) agree the family unit is dissolving and b) what are the causes.  My intent here is not to debate the reasons for the changes in the historical family structure only to point out it has happened and the evolution of that construct has serious implications for the stability of society and the government that sits on top of that society.

The next pillar is one of faith. There must be a shared sense of faith for society to flourish and remain stable. We in the US have had a shared sense of faith in the rightness of the Judeo-Christian God, but that is not really the faith I am talking about here. The Egyptian society lasted for over 10,000 years and they did not believe in Yahweh or the Trinity. The families of society must place their faith is a shared and common system of beliefs that may include but is not limited to a common faith in a higher being. It must include a faith that those who govern do so for the good of society. We see that in the foundational belief we are “all equal under the law.”  It also must include a faith that tomorrow offers a promise of being better than today. When that belief is destroyed the supporting leg of faith begins to crack and the stability of that society is put at risk.

The final “essential” leg is that of purpose. Without a shared sense of purpose, society is left adrift. That sense of purpose focuses the efforts of the people, hopefully towards a common good. Without purpose the other two legs are meaningless. Perhaps the visionaries of our founding generation realized this better than others as they defined our purpose to establish a government unlike any which had gone before, and then created our “manifest destiny” which drove our westward expansion.  John F. Kennedy understood this when he challenged us to reach the moon before the end of the decade and in so doing beat the Soviet Union.

Well, for what it’s worth those are my opinions. I think it will be interesting to see if our grand experiment lasts as we adjust the legs of the society that underpins it.

Independence Day 2019

So, let’s talk about Independence Day!

  It first occurred on an oppressively hot and humid summer day in the city of Philadelphia, in the colony of Pennsylvania.  Within the shuttered confines of the Pennsylvania State House delegates from the 13 English Colonies met to debate the course of action in response to what they saw as an increasingly oppressive English rule.  By the way, oppressive English rule seemed to be the standard of the day.  Just ask the Scots and the Irish if there is a question on this.

Their response turned the world upside down and set the colonies on a path, which would result in the formation of our current form of government some 13-years later.  Even the most visionary of people could not grasp what this small nation of independent thinkers and individualists would grow to become.

It seems to me, each of the following generations has confronted, to one extent or another, the realities of life in a dangerous world.  Their choices shaped the nation, for better or worse, for the subsequent generations.  The question we wrestle with today is not unlike the question before those men who represented their friends, neighbors, and the colonies in 1776.  Simply stated it is “should we continue as we are, or should we change to an unknown?”

Fortunately, the representatives present at the establishment of our current government put in place a vehicle capable of change and adaptation to the needs of subsequent generations, but that is for another day.  Today, I would like to consider the words of our Independence for just a minute.

“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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

Those who believe this nation to be irreparably racist point out even as we said all men were created equal we supported and accepted slavery.  That is absolutely true, but as we talk of the ideal we strive for, does the fact we failed at our initial declaration make the ideal wrong or not self-evident to those who would seek the truth of the nature of man?

The founders shared a reasonably common set of religious beliefs based on their Christianity.  They recognized “unalienable rights” must come from a power greater than the government, for if those rights come only from the government then the government has the ability to take them away.  As we abandon our faith, the question becomes; is any right inalienable?  We see in today’s political debates demands for this or that right from some group, at the same time they oppose other groups seeking their own rights.  If you doubt this – you need only look at the demands of the LGBTQ coalition and their attacks on the organized Christian faiths, or businesses that have publicly stated their support for the faith.

Unfortunately, it appears we are abandoning the ideas of our founders regarding unalienable rights, and now look to the rights we want our government to provide either through taxation or indebtedness.  Along the way we see increasing rejection of some of the safeguards, the original citizens thought to be important.  For example, we see in the censorship of online speech a growing belief by some they have the right to only allow speech they agree with.  This follows the social trend to classify speech we don’t like as “hate” and clearly it is wrong to allow hate, isn’t it?  The larger question for the social media corporations is are they public spaces worthy of government protection, or are they politically aligned corporations subject to government regulation?  There is growing evidence they are the latter, with their corporate political bias forming an inherent sense of entitlement to stop speech they disagree with while fostering ideas they support.  This has long been a position of centralized governments as they controlled the thoughts and ideas of the masses to ensure the stability of the government.

Isn't it humorous for the left to hold as an example of courage a man standing against the overwhelming force of an authoritarian government, as seen in the picture of tanks in Tiananmen Square, when as a group they are more interested in growing the power of the government to limit the freedoms we’ve historically cherished?

In the Congressional hearings on whether to regulate the huge internet companies (6/26/19), Representative Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), notes the hypocrisy of Google® executives in their internal communication released through a Project Veritas exposé.  They are willing to label and censor conservative voices as Nazis without consideration of the hate they are invoking in their own speech.  Of course, in these days where absolutely everything becomes a partisan issue, the Democrats in the hearing are not at all concerned with how the internet is controlled as long as it is controlled by people who agree with their politics.

But let's put that aside for today and ask a more important question.
The social issue, which seems to be at the forefront of today’s celebrations is does this nation have either a right or desire to remain a sovereign nation governed by law or does it wish to open its borders to allow unrestricted access to all the benefits previous administrations had limited to actual citizens?  That is the $64,000 question for this independence day.

It's About Karma and Stones

The theologies of the world’s religions try and teach us to be better humans, but more often than not they fail miserably because we can’t get past the fact we crave attention and power.  Let’s think about that for a bit, shall we?

The religions of India detail a cause and effect relationship with one’s actions.  Good acts in the current life will have a positive outcome in the next, while bad acts will likely have a negative impact.  One’s future, therefore, depends on acting in a positive and affirming nature but as we see in the world around us, despite all the cliché examples of good or bad Karma, we humans will act out of a need for short-term gain without consideration of the potential adverse outcomes our actions might generate.

In Christianity, we find the story of Jesus and the temple courts (John, Chapter 8, versus 1-8).  A woman stood accused of adultery - under Hebrew law her punishment was death by stoning.  The scribes and Pharisees, attempting to corner Jesus is some act of heresy, questioned him on what they should do to the woman, and asked him to approve of the stoning.  Jesus response silenced the elders when he directed that whoever was without sin should throw the first stone.  Everyone knew there was no one without sin, so they were at a stalemate.  He then questioned the woman and released her with the direction to “go and sin no more.”

These examples serve only to preface the hilarity of today’s political world, where people who have little or no real morality are empowered to tell the rest of the world how things must be.

This past fall we saw the Democratic Senators, and their propaganda arm known as the mainstream media (i.e. ABCNNBCBS and MSNBC), attempt to destroy the reputation and approval of the administration’s nomination to the Supreme Court.  Every talking head, including the empty ones on “The View” and “Morning Joe,” set out to vilify the nominee based on unsupported accusations from his high school years.  At the end of the day “Spartacus Booker” Diane Feinstein, and “For the People, Harris” were unable to overcome the nomination, mostly because of the Karma that came from the decisions of the previous Congress where the Democratic party leadership chose to change the rules for what it took to block a nomination. 

Now we have the circus of the Virginia state government, which seems to be imploding after their less than courageous (I would suggest non-humanitarian) decision to support post-birth (okay really, really, late-term) abortion.  Remarkably, the Governor and Attorney General have been proven, by current DNC standards. to be racist while the Lieutenant Governor stands accused of being a sexual assaulter by another Ph.D.  In the past, the Democratic position was these sins must be accepted and the politicans stoned until they resign.

This presents an interesting dilemma for the party’s propaganda arm as they struggle to find the Republican who must really be the bad guy in this.  Fortunately, they’ve found a link to the next in line (State Senator Thomas K. Norment, Jr.) which can be used to suggest he too is a racist.  So, there may actually be no one who is not a racist or rapist in Virginia capable of running the state.  I can only imagine what the historically racist figures of the DNC would think of their party as it is embroiled in the social warfare the left has chosen as its battleground.

I also wonder if they will ever come to understand that attempting to destroy their opposition through ad hominin attack will most certainly come back to haunt them at some point.  As the bible said, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

Or to put it in modern political terms.  “I’m rubber, you’re glue; whatever you say bounces off me and sticks on you!”

It's a Question of Life and Death

This past week we’ve been informed of the suicides of a fashion designer and a renowned celebrity chef.  As reported in the news, Ms. Kate Spade and Mr. Anthony Bourdain took their lives - apparently hanging themselves.  This same week we are told Mr. Charles Krauthammer has decided to end his fight against an aggressive cancer and let it take his life.  The public outpourings that come with the news of celebrity deaths always give me reason to reflect and I would like to share those thoughts for a few paragraphs.

In the cases of suicide there is, of course, the tributes to a life well lived, and the distress over the individual’s decision to end that life before reaching so natural end.  We see public service announcements about suicide prevention helplines, discussion on how depression is a hidden illness and how there is always hope and we should reach out to check on people to make sure they aren’t about to kill themselves.  These are all admirable things, but when do we ask ourselves the tough question of why suicide is becoming such an epidemic choice in America.  According to the Foundation for Suicide Prevention[1], it is currently the 10^th largest cause of death in America and the NY Times[2] reports rates have reached a 30-year high.  The data suggests close to 45,000 people will take their life this year.  To put that into perspective school violence from guns will account for maybe a hundred deaths each year in school shootings.

Don’t get me wrong, one death is too many in school violence, but the focus of the media seems to be proportionately misplaced as they become outraged over this but say little about the choices that affect 225% more lives.  Casting the media frenzy aside what is it about our society that has caused the suicide rates to go up as they have? 

I believe suicide has always been part of the human condition.   The Eastern faiths and societies view the act as one of courage.  For example, it is well known that traditional Japanese society specific forms of suicide were/are vital if one was to maintain their honor. For years those who touted the quality of Japanese educational standards would gloss over the fact suicide was a leading cause of death for teens[3]. Was poor performance in school the causal factor?

In the middle east and the western world, we see Muslims far too often choose to use their suicides as weapons to kill and maim those who they’ve been taught to hate, with the promise of a greater reward in heaven.  We vilify these acts, but does that have an impact on the next individual or group who seeks to inflict harm through the process of self-sacrifice?  I suspect not.

Western culture has attempted to reduce the allure of suicide through the church teachings.  Church leaders tell the faithful it is a sin, or that it will have long-term repercussions for their souls.  But then there are more extreme faiths (or cults) that have actually encouraged the taking of your own life to reach a higher reward.  It seems to me the moral restraint against the taking of your life is quickly losing its hold on our Judeo-Christian society, but why?

I think there are a number of reasons.  Some may have to do with a loss of the influence of faith, but most of it has to do with the changes we’ve brought forward that gradually erodes the restraint we previously held.  Within my lifetime we have become a culture where self-inflicted death is a practical choice for anyone who chooses it.  We’ve made the taking of unborn life a right that is fought for and defended by those who believe women (and occasionally men) should be unencumbered by their sexual choices. 

We are now beginning to make a choice patient-doctor termination is a preferred option for those who are diagnosed with terminal illness.  Currently, there are seven states with statutes allowing physician-assisted suicide, they are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington[4].  Finally, with a few celebrity exceptions, we rarely report on the daily toll of people who’ve found death a preferred option to the life ahead of them.  I imagine that number will only increase as the moral view of suicide in our country continues to evolve.

There are those who cite an increase in depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, (PTSD) but haven’t those conditions always existed?  The only thing that has changed is we now have names approved by the National Institute of Mental Health. There are statements by many (perhaps expert/perhaps not) that the younger generations are more “fragile” than the older generations.  Personally, I don’t hold this to be true.  What we have are medical experts that believe they can correctly diagnose the mental states of individuals with the expectation they can make those individuals different, either through medication or therapy.  So now it is far more prevalent to suggest someone who deviates from the norm has an abnormal condition and should seek medical help, but what is normal in a society that is evolving to encourage people that death is okay?

---

[1] https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/health/us-suicide-rate-surges-to-a-30-year-high.html

[3] https://www.wilsonquarterly.com/stories/the-mystery-behind-japans-high-suicide-rates-among-kids/

[4] https://healthcare.findlaw.com/patient-rights/death-with-dignity-laws-by-state.html

The Road Not Taken

All things are possible.  Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26)

“Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” (a quote made famous by Robert Oppenheimer originally from the 1944 Prabhavanada and Isherwood Translation of the Bhagavad Gita[1])

As we look toward the future there are always two options.  We can look forward to a better future with optimism, or we can see the deep, depressing gloom of a world lost.  The question each of us must answer individually is which path shall I take?

It is so easy in today’s world to choose the darker path because those who feed the information stream scream out all the ills of the world.  There are a variety of motivations for this, profit, fame, pettiness, or just selfish pleasure, but in the end, it all contributes to pushing us towards the negative.

For me, Robert Frost’s poem “The Road Not Taken” serves as a guide to follow my own heart and not be persuaded by the shouts of those who find pleasure in their own voices.

---

[1] http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/now-i-am-become-death-the-destroyer-of-worlds

Looking In

The teenage years are inevitably filled with angst as a child leaves the comfort of youth and moves towards independence as an adult.  How much pain and struggle the individual has is affected by all the variables life throws at them.  While there are countless small variances I think the big ones are: how they view themselves, how they perceive others view them, how they relate to their parents, extended families, or guardians, and how those groups encourage, guide, or challenge the changes they are going through.

It seems to me the hardest thing for a good parent to do is watch their child fail, but it is also one of the most important things if they can let it happen and then help pick up the pieces their child's understanding of life is stronger.  For it is through failure that we learn the most lasting lessons, and develop the confidence to challenge ourselves to be better the next time.

If children see only the extremes, where they always succeed or fail then what qualities do they develop?  If in failure they are harshly condemned by those they trust, or in their success they are praised beyond reason do they grow to understand the values of such things in a healthy society?  I don’t think they do, and perhaps that is one of the factors that has led us to this day, where class and race warfare are once again emerging as primary political divisions within the social fabric.

I wonder, what will the current generation of parents choose as their model to help their children find their way through the transition from dependent to independent?  Will they be more successful than past generations or will all the new experts just befuddle them to the point they surrender -- leaving the children to find their own way?

"Don't Drive Angry"

One of my favorite lines from the movie “Groundhog Day” is when Bill Murry, as Phil the weatherman, has stolen Punxsutawney Phil the groundhog and intends to commit suicide by driving off a cliff at the quarry.  Along the way he puts the groundhog behind the wheel and as they go barreling through the quarry Phil cautions Punxsutawney “don’t drive angry.”

We seem to be in our own inescapable version of that movie, where each day repeats itself.  Nothing changes, or if there are changes they are so minute we miss their significance. 

In the movie, Phil slowly makes the changes necessary to escape his day.  So too will we, but unlike Phil, I wonder if we will learn the lessons to make tomorrow better?

My advice this winter morning – don’t drive angry.

Flight

The heavens have always called to us.  We have studied the sky seeking answers to questions about this thing we call life.  The vast universe seems to offer us answers to all our questions, but does it?  When all we had were our eyes we would look to the stars and seek answers in their shapes or positions.  We saw in them the forms of the gods, foretelling the future.  Some of us still do.

Others saw a challenge in the sky.  If only we could mimic the flight of the bird, then we could move beyond the pettiness and conflicts we have always had.  If we could fly we would be free to compress time and distance, if we were free then we would be equal if we were equal -- wars would end.  The elusive challenge of flight offered us a utopia if we could but discover its mystery. 

On December 17^th, 1903 Orville Wright accomplished what no one had done before, he achieved sustained powered flight for about 12-seconds covering about 120-feet.  Here we are approaching the 114^th anniversary of that momentous day at Kill Devil Hill, Kitty Hawk, North Carolina and sadly must recognize the achievement of flight did not alter the basic nature of mankind.

Where Does Our Concept of Morality Come From?

I seem to be on singular path right now.  A conversation with an avowed atheist got me thinking about what is moral and what is immoral, in these days of rationalization.  As I said in my previous post, according to most modern theories, where God is removed from the equation, “Morality is the product of the evolutionary development of man, and society.  Morality is always relative and never absolute.”

If we assume this is true, where and how do we learn what the moral standards for our society are?  What is the basis for our own moral judgements, and how does society change its views?  I don’t know how many people spend much time thinking about this, but I have.  From those times; I’ve formed a number of opinions.  Some are researched, others just based on the empirical observations of life around me.

Back in the olden days of my youth I think the family was the principle basis for passing along the moral education of society.  Today we call that familiar process “White Privilege” because our society has done a wonderful job of destroying the Black Family.  Even then, not all families were deeply religious, those that were may have done a better job of instilling faith into the children, but my experience is a good church (I don’t assume all churches are good), built upon the work of the parents, it could not substitute for it, only supplement the foundational basis for moral judgement.

But what happens when the parents have a sense of morality that differs from society’s?  What I’ve observed is, for the large percentage those differences are accepted by the children and incorporated into their own moral standards.  The groups become sub-cultures within the larger context of the nation.  For example, the gypsies are infamous in Europe for a society that crosses national boundaries.  It has its own moral code, that is often at odds with the various civil cultures and laws.

Consider the growth of the Moron Church from its founding until the push for the statehood of Utah.  Polygamy was a morally acceptable aspect of life.  It wasn’t until the statehood issue that the church had to acquiesce to the more normally accepted concept of marriage.  Funny how now that we are changing that concept of what marriage is, the Mormons are again being criticized for not accepting the right value.

So, I believe the parents and extended family are the most basic teachers of morality for children, but who else plays a role, and what about those crazy teenage years as a young person begins to really explore and define his or her own personality, and personal belief set?  As they move away from their parents who fills in the missing spaces?

-- To be continued --

A Few Thoughts on the Bill of Rights

Before the framers of the US Constitution even finished their work on designing a government “of the people” they realized all governments had the potential to become authoritarian as the separation grew between citizens and rulers.  It was this concern that led to the formation of the first ten amendments, known collectively as the Bill of Rights.

As I’ve previously written[i], several of these safeguards are critical to our individual rights, while a couple are relegated to the dust bin of society and see little use in guiding court decisions.  Everyone has heard about the 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th and 5^th amendments, and almost everyone forgets about the 3^rd and 10^th.  Unfortunately, it appears to me, those who should be most concerned with the guarding protections of these safeguards display a willingness to abandon them to gain some short-term political advantage. 

When a society chooses not to support the concepts behind the amendments there is little the government will do to stop that move, for it is in the ruling class interest to consolidate as much power and wealth as possible.  Each time the society casts aside one of the principles – those in power will take advantage and bring more authority to themselves.

A vocal segment of today’s young look longingly at the advertised benefits of a socialist or communist form of government, where wealth is controlled by the government, and benefits of that wealth are distributed to all based on need.  I suspect the reasons for this are two-fold.  First, they have spent their lives sheltered from the physical and emotional realities of those forms of government, and our educators have dismissed the idea of civics debate; opting for the easier course of political indoctrination.

In the course of those today’s social debate, they are willingly abandoning the ideal of a government “of the people” for the idea government will always be “for the people.”  What history should teach is with the growth of any government as the people surrender power, the elite will care for themselves, sending just enough scraps to the population so as to keep them subservient.  The analogy is of the Emperors of Rome and the great circus.

History should also help us understand the elite will use all the tools available to dissuade the people from questioning their legitimacy.  Is there really much difference between a fawning church hierarchy supporting the idea the rights of the King come from God, and a loyal and unquestioning press declaring only one-party cares about the people, when in truth no party cares?  The political parties exist for one reason only, to consolidate power and wealth to dominate the political conflict they use to justify their role. 

As we become a society focused on what is in it for me, we abandon the ideas and ideals of our founders.  I offer this one small piece of advice – be careful what you ask for, for you may receive it.

---

[i] http://aviewfrombehindthecurtain.blogspot.com/2017/03/a-review-of-constitutional-amendments.html

Moving from Theology to Meology

There was an excellent homily Sunday morning at church.  The priest spoke about a sign he had seen on another church.  It said we were replacing theology with meology, and he wanted to talk about that.  It got me thinking about it, which is what a good sermon, or homily, should do.

What is Meology?  The simple definition suggests it is placing your individual desires above all else.  If theology is the study of faith, God, and God’s relationship with the world, then meology would be the study of self and how one relates to the world.  The distinction replaces a supreme being with the individual, in effect making the individual the supreme being accountable only to oneself.

This theory, along with the principle of Stare Decisis[i] form the basis for the Supreme Court of the United States decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania vs. Casey[ii], when Justices O’Conn0r, Kennedy and Souter writing for the court said, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

In its support and modification of Roe vs. Wade,[iii] the court sided with the right of the individual woman over the right of the fetus (and the state).  What they did not, and could not, address was the long-term affect those decisions would have on society.

As we moved from a belief in the value of life, to a belief that a woman’s right to end life if she chooses is more important, what other unifying principles are discarded?

I believe Justice O’Connor, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Souter err in their statement that at the heart of liberty is self-definition.  I believe acceptance of self-responsibility is a more critical basis upon which individual and collective liberty must rest.  For if we are not responsible for our actions, how long does it take to move from freedom to anarchy? 

Since the court took it upon itself to establish a woman’s right to abortion as a guaranteed freedom, reinforcing that position in PPSEP v Casey, we see in our politics a clearly growing polarization of opinion as those with agendas, both obvious and hidden, maneuver to pull the nation apart.  What within our moral framework calls for us to find common purpose and basis for agreement, if we are focused solely on me rather than us?

---

[i] Latin – Let Stand

[ii] 505 U.S. 833 (1992), page 851

[iii]410 U.S. 113 (1973)

I'd Rather be a Hammer...

No One Wants Equality

Look around society.  We see demands for equality, but really, no one wants equality.  Everyone wants to be on top, and if they can’t be on top the next best thing is to be a victim. 

Can anyone show me an ‘ism that isn’t arguing for their superiority or victimhood status in the media?  Everyone wants to tell everyone else how to behave or think, disagreement will not be tolerated and when independent thought does occur it creates outraged victims.

A Social Question

They (those mythical experts), say with age comes wisdom.  I am not convinced this is true, but for now let’s assume it is.  My question then is, at what age does the younger generation have enough wisdom to determine which values of their elders they should cast aside and which they should retain? 

It seems obvious the answer must recognize that wisdom and knowledge are not synonymous and one may have knowledge without wisdom.  But can one have wisdom, without knowledge?  That question seems to be harder to answer.  It also seems obvious that knowledge must come from the world, learned from parents and family, teachers, friends, trusted public personalities, books (or now the world-wide web), and observation.  Wisdom, though is something beyond knowledge.

 “Knowledge and wisdom, far from being one, have oft-times no connection.  Knowledge dwells in heads replete with thoughts of other men; wisdom, in minds attentive to their own.  Knowledge, a rude unprofitable mass, the mere materials with which wisdom builds, till smooth’d and squar’d and fitted to its place, does but encumber whom it seems t’enrich.  Knowledge is proud that he has learn’d so much; wisdom is humble that he knows no more.” 

William Cowper (1731-1800) The Task, 6.88, 1785[i]

Aldous Huxley, in his essay Censorship and Spoken Literature, published in 1956, wrote “Ours is a world in which knowledge accumulates and wisdom decays.”[ii]  The events of the past 20 years have, for me, solidified the accuracy of Huxley’s statement.

In the 1960’s and 70’s, when my generation was coming of age, we were full of knowledge and ideas on how to make the world better.  We were inspired by the science that sought to take us to the stars, embarrassed by the racism that existed in America, and alienated by a war that seemed to have no end, yet sought to send our young off to die in a war with no clear road to victory.  Yet here we are some forty years later, with my generation in charge and surrounded by the same problems we had as young men and women.  Where did we fail to translate knowledge into wisdom?

For eight years, we had a President who was extremely popular with his supporters, the press, and the liberal establishment.  He was 47 when elected, yet he was surrounded by people my age and older.  In the course of his administration what did he and his party accomplish?  Was he, and his party, able to translate their vision of a more equitable America into a reality?  Was he personally able to translate his knowledge into the wisdom necessary to unite the country and end our wars?  Did he and his administration show the wisdom to consider all the social implications of casting aside the bias and concerns of a large portion of society, as they rushed to appease the vocal minorities? 
Why not?

The unfortunate reality of the past administration was the creation of conditions that led directly to the current administration.  As much as his supporters would deny this, the facts are inescapable.  We, the people of the United States, when asked to cast our ballot in November, cast enough of them in enough different places to bring in an outsider who refused to conform to the political expectations of either party.

The other unfortunate reality is the current President, his administration, and all his opponents seem no more capable of translating knowledge into wisdom than the previous one.  Bringing me back to my original question.  When do we have the wisdom to know what is right for the whole, or when the rights of the one outweigh the rights of the many?

---

[i] Leonard Roy Frank, Random House Webster’s Quotationary, Random House, NYC, NY, 1999, p. 931

[ii] Leonard Roy Frank, Random House Webster’s Quotationary, Random House, NYC, NY, 1999, p. 931

What is My Obligation? (part 2)

As society changes, as the old gives way to the new, how am I supposed to feel and relate?  Psychologists tell us man’s social structure is not vastly different than that of rats.  We are both social animals, who need the help of others to survive and prosper.  We find our niche in society and tend to remain there for our lives.  There are exceptional individuals who through their uniqueness affect the society as a whole, and in passing their genes on may improve the potential for that society.  I found this to be an interesting analogy when I first heard it, today I find it just a bit troubling as I ask the question, what kind of rat am I?

As individuals, when we interact with other individuals on a human level, we are usually kind and considerate, or we hide behind a mask that suggests we are.  As we band together in groups one of the first things we seem to lose is consideration for others and tolerance.  There are those who care so little for society they demand their own way at the expense of the greater good.  They move through life barging into people without notice.  They cast aside those they look down on, or they are openly violent to those they despise.  For a society to survive these individuals and groups must be a very small fraction of the population.  I am not talking here about those we understand to be ill, but rather those who’ve willingly chosen to abandon the accepted moral standards of a society striking out with a band of like-minded people.  Do I have an obligation to these groups?  If so what is it?

What makes this question so hard for me is the similarity between groups I am told are horribly bad and groups I am told are so wonderfully good.  Both have chosen to abandon the accepted social order and strike out on their own in the hopes of reshaping the society at large.  Who gets to choose which group is good or bad?  To illustrate my point, I will discuss two groups who’ve risen to political prominence (at different times), within the Democratic Party, (I focus on the Democratic party to remove the current debate between the values of good and evil the DNC and the RNC have framed for themselves), and while I have my personal view of why one group is now good and the other now bad does that equal a moral truth?

On the one hand, we have the Ku Klux Klan, originally established in the post-civil war reconstruction era, allegedly to protect the interests of the southern whites, it rose to nation-wide political prominence in the first third of the 20^th Century.  In his 1915 film “Birth of a Nation,” D.W. Griffith produced and directed as a testament to the Klan.  In the film, he showed the Klan as protectors of white virtue and patriotic national pride.  The film was overtly racist, showing the blacks as unintelligent and sexually aggressive towards the white women. It encouraged the discrimination of blacks and other minorities as it encouraged pride in the white race.  The NAACP attempted to stop the screening and failed.  It is credited with a resurgence of the Klan in the 1920s, so clearly it played to some sentiment within the larger society.  Despite decades of evidence that racism is morally repugnant, economically damaging, almost universally condemned by our society (as shown by the multitude of laws against it) -- it still exists.

On the other hand, we have today’s LGBT(Q) movement.  We see this group’s influence in almost every medium available.  They have gained significant support across the social infrastructure, and the SCOTUS has afforded them, as a group, the protections of the 14^th Amendment.  The Executive branch has taken active steps to assure their recognition in the government structure.  In the transition from a silent minority to a vocal minority there has been an evolution within the Democratic party.  The political winds have shifted from a position where the democratic politicians denied their rights in the mid-1990s (the Defense of Marriage Act), to a decision to embrace them.  What has changed within the party to bring about this enlightenment? Is it just another hot-button topic to use as they struggle for political dominance, or is there truly a change towards acceptance in our moral foundation?

Obviously, those who support the LGBT movement would say yes there has been a change, but does that make it so? 

Here we have two minority positions, both of which have become political in their nature.  The first, white supremacy, came into being long ago, the second, LGBT(Q) supremacy, is recent.  But it would be foolish to assume either of the human traits is modern.  Our literature can trace both qualities back through the millenniums.   What I take away from the current condemnations or support, is that while political winds change, the deeper the politicians inject themselves into the moral issues of a society, the more likely they are to create division, rather than acceptance.  I don’t see a lot of fundamental success in legislating moral positions, so how do I decide what my obligation is regarding either condemnation, acceptance, rejection, or support?

At least for the time being the adage “live and let live” seems to be passé.