I read a post on one of the Yahoo groups to which I belong and I added the following two cents. I thought it was so good I figured I should put it here as well. The previous poster to whom I responded made the comment that Christianity isn't a religion, which I hardly think is accurate, and the following gives some idea of why.
Christianity may not have been intended as a religion, but like you said, we're quite a few centuries late to actually be debating that particular point.
It's interesting that just about every modern religion started out as a philosophy. Christianity and Judaism and Buddhism were all intended as guides to moral living. The Buddha even said he was a normal man and not to be worshipped, but take a trip through Thailand and tell me he isn't. It seems that as time passed these philosophies collected accoutrements of religion, rather like a Lotto winner collects distant cousins. In time, the messiahs and prophets and gods became more important than their message.
I think America is seeing a reversal of this whole catastrophe, unfortunately, it doesn't mean that they are rediscovering the message, but simply, that the accoutrements of religion are losing their eminence.
It's curious that a lot of the virtues discussed in a religious capacity were discussed by the likes of Plato and Aristotle, but they failed to become prophets or messiahs. I guess their failure was in that they didn't couch what they had to say within the trappings of gods and divinity, and thus it lacked validation.
Still, it's a testament to their wisdom that their thoughts survived to modern times and influenced our world so profoundly. It's kind of a shame that what they had to teach only eventually reached the masses through the distillery of religion.
I may have wandered a bit far from the starting point, but I guess my ultimate point is that it doesn't seem that people are interested in hearing that goodness and decency are their own rewards. The threat of hell and the bribe of heaven seem to be much more alluring.
I think I ought to say something for my fellow Californians in the southern part of the state. The best I can come up with is that they have my sympathy. It's kind of lame, but sometimes words are horribly inadequate. I'm saddened by their loss and outraged by the knowledge that it needn't have happened.
I will have more to say about this topic in general, but for the time being, I can only say that I hope good fortune will smile on the people who have been affected by the fires.
I just read that Australia paid Eritrea a million bucks to take a shipload of sheep of their hands. That must have been a fucked up bunch of sheep. Or else Eritreans drive a hard bargain.
PETA (I think it means People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) offered a couple thousand pounds of veggie burgers to the town of Rodeo (pronounced roh day oh, by the way) if it will change its name. What's their beef?
The state procession in London has been cancelled due to anti-war protestors. MI-5 and MI-6 can not guarantee the safety of the queen or President Bush. Sympathizers in America are saying that these protestors are rightly making a statement about the evil and imperialistic policies of the Bush administration. Furthermore, they are trying to protect Prime Minister Blair from President Bush's bad influence (when did they become high schoolers? And why would they have elected Blair in the first place if he was such a worthless nincompoop).
I think all this goes to prove that fools can be very dangerous. Since when does Britain or France or any other country in the world tell Americans what they ought to believe? Better yet, since when do Americans eat up what they have to say? By their own admission, the protestors in Britain are trying to influence Americans while we are gearing up for the 2004 election. They are certainly welcome to try, I just hope people ask themselves 'what do these people know about America' before jumping on their bandwagon.
Of course I'm opening myself up for the argument that we're part of the greater world and we must be sensitive to the opinions of the world. Retch. The world does not elect our president or our congress. Americans do.
It's a very slick double standard in my estimation. If America influences the election process in another country we're meddlers and trying to set up a puppet regime. If we allow others to influence our election we're. . . enlightened? Fair players in the global community?
America founded the United Nations right here in San Francisco. We host the UN in New York City, we pay about 20% of its budget. We contributed about $15 billion of our budget to international aid last year, which is more sheer dollars than any other country in the world. I think that's a pretty good track record as far as being fair players in the world community.
Anti-Americanism seems to be the latest fad here at home and the rest of the world loves it. This sentiment seems to be gaining steam in America and I find it somewhat frightening. What do Americans stand to gain by abadoning the philosophy that sent America to the top in favor of systems which are not consistent with the ideals that make America such a remarkable and successful place?
And welcome to my blog. I just discovered blogging and it may well be the neatest thing to come down the pike since perforated graham crackers. Anyhow, welcome to my blog. I hope you find something of value here, even if it's just an excuse to complain.
My blog will be primarily concerned with political, social and religious issues. You can hardly talk about one without having to deal with the others. I find it all to be a fascinating mess of ideas, beliefs and opinions, and look forward to sharing my two cents. If nothing else, I will be entertaining myself.
I'm one of those rare moderate Republicans (although I suspect our ranks will swell in the not so distant future). I approached politics with the same curiosity that guided me in studying religion. I leaned to the Left for a while until I realized that, ultimately, Leftist policies are probably not sustainable in America, and many of them are inconsistent with the human condition in general. I believe in capitalism and Libertarianism. So I tossed my lot in with the Republicans.
I feel almost obligated to start my blog with a post on Iraq. It is, without doubt, the most hotly discussed topic in current affairs, and I'm not above jumping on the occassional bandwagon.
I supported military action in Iraq for a number of reasons (I have every reason to believe I will be chatting about them in time). But that isn't necessarily the topic of this particular post. President Bush and the powers that be in Iraq have attempted to appropriate reconstruction money for the purchase of garbage trucks.
The Leftists erupted (and have won the battle according to the deal passed by Congress. The purchase of garbage trucks for Iraq is "politically sensitive", and enough Republicans were swayed by their arguments that the appropriation was trimmed). They argued that we have so many problems at home that such an expenditure is unjustified and wasteful. That we need to spend the money on our economy, and our own social institutions. The socially liberal Left, the bastion of the little man, the minority, and the downtrodden souls would rather see the people of Iraq wallow in their own filth than share America's wealth and ingenuity. According to the [url=www.who.int/][b]WHO[/b][/url], appropriate sanitation would eliminate more disease in the world than any other effort. Providing clean water, disposing of garbage, and treating sewage is the single most effective means of reducing mortality the world over. I guess the bleeding hearts don't mind watching children play in piles of trash as long as it's not at home.
Perhaps there are valid arguments against our war with Iraq, but we crossed that bridge some time ago. The war is over, we won. But, the job isn't over until the paperwork is done. The Left would have us simply pack our bags and leave Iraq to its own devices. Who cares that civil war would destroy what little infrastructure remains? What difference does it make that Saddam (who is almost universally considered the scourge of Iraq and a cruel and wicked excuse for a human being) will be replaced by a mirror image? Who cares that such an action is the equivalent of burning every dollar and every life that was spent on Iraq? Liberals insist we shouldn't have gone in the first place. It's not clear to me why simply undoing what we've done is a solution, but maybe that's why I don't make a good Democrat. I believe that whether our course of action was right or wrong, we now have a responsibility to complete what we started.[LINE]
