Do you listen to talk radio? Watch political TV shows? Do they make your blood boil? Is that their goal? Do you ever get tired of all the negativity and vilification? It's not limited to those types of "entertainment" either, is it? The new cool seems to be the old angry (or at least complaining, gossiping or backbiting). What we need is a little sponge love.
What is sponge love? Remember those sponges for bathtime that were shaped in letters of the alphabet? That's the sponge part. We had those for our kids when they were real little and my wife and I started using them to write love letters to each other. That's the love part. It wasn't easy with one of each of the letters of the alphabet, so we had to get pretty creative. We eventually bought a second set, then a third. Finally we dumped them and went to dry erase markers. But the purpose is the same: be positive and loving.
Most of the following we actually have written on the shower wall. A few though are thoughts for what we can write in the future. So if you're feeling a little too much negativity in your life right now, sit back and soak in the positive love.
We'd have a utopian society if every man had a you.
You are more desirable every day.
Well done. (And the reply) I'd say you're rare.
Your laughter brings joy to my heart.
Wish I'd married you a lot earlier.
The lights dim when you leave the room.
Your daily gift of love spoils me.
You take my breath away. (Reply) Quick, let's do mouth to mouth.
I'm in debt for the love I owe you.
How do I love thee? Let me count the ways ... can't, there are too many.
My heart was reborn on our wedding day.
I'm a better person because I'm married to you.
You have two hearts: yours and mine.
All that I have is nothing without you.
There's never enough time to spend with you.
A gift of my love for your birthday (you can place a gift in the tub/shower with an arrow pointing to it). (Reply) But it's not my birthday. (Response) Every day I celebrate your life.
So why didn't I wait until Valentine's Day to write this kind of a piece? Because love shouldn't have to wait. And besides, you look like you needed it.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
The Nobel Peace Prize — Dy-no-mite!
Prestige. How does one get it and how does one hold onto it? The Norwegian Nobel Committee has attained great prestige with their annual prizes. They recently came under fire though for the award of their 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Whether you agree with the award or not, why does the world put so much emphasis on what the Norwegian Nobel Committee decides? Who are they? Who was Nobel?
The Norwegian Nobel Committee is made up of five members who are appointed by the Norwegian Parliament. They are supposed to represent the political makeup of the Norwegian Parliament. Point #1: The Nobel Peace Prize is political.
The Nobel Committee is currently made up of one man (Chair of the committee) and four women. Two are from the Labour Party and each of the remaining three represents a different party: the Conservative Party, the Progress Party, and the Socialist Left Party. The Labour Party is officially a social democratic party. "[I]t is largely through their efforts that the modern welfare state in Norway has been created." The Conservative Party considers itself non-socialist, however its "social policies are quite liberal, with the party's programme supporting liberal policies such as gay adoption rights and marriage." It only received 14.1 percent of the vote in 2005. The Progress Party's original name was "Anders Lange’s Party for a Strong Reduction in Taxes, Duties and Public Intervention." It is considered right-winged. Though it "became the second largest political party in Norway for its first time in the 1997 parliamentary election, and has been so ever since, only abrupted by the 2001 parliamentary elections, " it "has yet to be part of a Norwegian government, mainly as a result of the concurrent ostracism by most of the other mainstream politcal [sic] parties." The Socialist Left Party was founded as "an alliance of the Socialist People's Party, Communist Party of Norway, Democratic Socialists - AIK and independent Socialists." The majority of the members of the committee are therefore socialist or socialist leaning with one member being "right-winged" whose party is ostracized by most of the other mainstream political parties. Sounds a lot like "The View". Why don't we just have Barbara, Whoopi, Joy, Sherri, and Elisabeth decide on who gets the Nobel Peace Prize? Would the outcome really be so much different? Point #2: The Nobel Committee is a left-leaning, socialist organization.
Alfred Bernhard Nobel was a Swedish chemist, engineer, inventor and manufacturer. His last will and testament established the Nobel Prizes using the majority of his estate to finance them. Of the Nobel Peace Prize his will states, from the Nobel Prize website: "... and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses (emphasis added)." He didn't say, "for actual accomplishments and not just for campaign promises," but it seems to be implied, wouldn't you think? Point #3: The Nobel Peace Prize is supposed to be for work already accomplished.
And speaking of Alfred Nobel, he wasn't just any inventor and manufacturer, he was a major armaments manufacturer (he turned a company named Bofors from an iron and steel mill into a weapons manufacturer) and invented gelignite (blasting gelatin), ballistite (a smokeless replacement for gunpowder) and dynamite. Weapons for peace? He wrote a prose tragedy, which was regarded as scandalous and blasphemous. When his efforts to sell the rights to ballistite to the French government failed (he was then living in Paris) he licensed the rights to the Italian government. Nobel was accused of industrial espionage and high treason against France. He subsequently moved to Italy where he spent the rest of his life. A premature obituary of Nobel by a French newspaper stated, "The merchant of death is dead," and went on to say, "Dr. Alfred Nobel, who became rich by finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before, died yesterday." Point #4: The person who established the Nobel Peace Prize was not considered a man of peace.
To summarize:
● The person who established the Nobel Peace Prize was not considered a man of peace.
● The Nobel Peace Prize is political.
● The Nobel Committee is a left-leaning, socialist organization.
● The Nobel Peace Prize is supposed to be for work already accomplished.
Does the prize still seem so prestigious now that you've learned these facts? Any organization is free to award what they want to whomever they want for whatever reason they want. That's not the issue. The issue is, should the rest of the world accept the political views of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, appointed by the Norwegian Parliament, without question? Should we think this is the end-all award for peace? Are their decisions of any worth? If so, how much? As far as their last decision goes, it looks like they got back to their roots, because it certainly seems to have blown up in their faces.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee is made up of five members who are appointed by the Norwegian Parliament. They are supposed to represent the political makeup of the Norwegian Parliament. Point #1: The Nobel Peace Prize is political.
The Nobel Committee is currently made up of one man (Chair of the committee) and four women. Two are from the Labour Party and each of the remaining three represents a different party: the Conservative Party, the Progress Party, and the Socialist Left Party. The Labour Party is officially a social democratic party. "[I]t is largely through their efforts that the modern welfare state in Norway has been created." The Conservative Party considers itself non-socialist, however its "social policies are quite liberal, with the party's programme supporting liberal policies such as gay adoption rights and marriage." It only received 14.1 percent of the vote in 2005. The Progress Party's original name was "Anders Lange’s Party for a Strong Reduction in Taxes, Duties and Public Intervention." It is considered right-winged. Though it "became the second largest political party in Norway for its first time in the 1997 parliamentary election, and has been so ever since, only abrupted by the 2001 parliamentary elections, " it "has yet to be part of a Norwegian government, mainly as a result of the concurrent ostracism by most of the other mainstream politcal [sic] parties." The Socialist Left Party was founded as "an alliance of the Socialist People's Party, Communist Party of Norway, Democratic Socialists - AIK and independent Socialists." The majority of the members of the committee are therefore socialist or socialist leaning with one member being "right-winged" whose party is ostracized by most of the other mainstream political parties. Sounds a lot like "The View". Why don't we just have Barbara, Whoopi, Joy, Sherri, and Elisabeth decide on who gets the Nobel Peace Prize? Would the outcome really be so much different? Point #2: The Nobel Committee is a left-leaning, socialist organization.
Alfred Bernhard Nobel was a Swedish chemist, engineer, inventor and manufacturer. His last will and testament established the Nobel Prizes using the majority of his estate to finance them. Of the Nobel Peace Prize his will states, from the Nobel Prize website: "... and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses (emphasis added)." He didn't say, "for actual accomplishments and not just for campaign promises," but it seems to be implied, wouldn't you think? Point #3: The Nobel Peace Prize is supposed to be for work already accomplished.
And speaking of Alfred Nobel, he wasn't just any inventor and manufacturer, he was a major armaments manufacturer (he turned a company named Bofors from an iron and steel mill into a weapons manufacturer) and invented gelignite (blasting gelatin), ballistite (a smokeless replacement for gunpowder) and dynamite. Weapons for peace? He wrote a prose tragedy, which was regarded as scandalous and blasphemous. When his efforts to sell the rights to ballistite to the French government failed (he was then living in Paris) he licensed the rights to the Italian government. Nobel was accused of industrial espionage and high treason against France. He subsequently moved to Italy where he spent the rest of his life. A premature obituary of Nobel by a French newspaper stated, "The merchant of death is dead," and went on to say, "Dr. Alfred Nobel, who became rich by finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before, died yesterday." Point #4: The person who established the Nobel Peace Prize was not considered a man of peace.
To summarize:
● The person who established the Nobel Peace Prize was not considered a man of peace.
● The Nobel Peace Prize is political.
● The Nobel Committee is a left-leaning, socialist organization.
● The Nobel Peace Prize is supposed to be for work already accomplished.
Does the prize still seem so prestigious now that you've learned these facts? Any organization is free to award what they want to whomever they want for whatever reason they want. That's not the issue. The issue is, should the rest of the world accept the political views of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, appointed by the Norwegian Parliament, without question? Should we think this is the end-all award for peace? Are their decisions of any worth? If so, how much? As far as their last decision goes, it looks like they got back to their roots, because it certainly seems to have blown up in their faces.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
The New Prejudice
There is a growing movement in society. It is one of rejecting long-held traditions; of saying what used to be unacceptable should now be acceptable. Every generation wants to make a name for itself. Many new generations reject their parents' belief systems in a misguided attempt to show they are independent, smarter, or more progressive than those who have gone before. Unfortunately this can, and does, lead to new prejudices.
What is a prejudice? The Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition gives this etymology: "Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin praejudicium previous judgment, damage, from prae- + judicium judgment." In other words, prejudice is a preconceived judgment or opinion. The same source continues: "an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge" and "an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics."
This week Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Republican United States Representative for Florida's 18th congressional district, who is currently the most senior Republican woman in the U.S. House, reportedly made this statement: "The [enter any opposing stance] bigotry spewed by this ... shill demonstrates once again that [there are] advocates of hate and intolerance."
Bigotry? Shill? Hate? Intolerance? Sounds like we already meet the criteria for "an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics." "Well, maybe it was deserved," you may think. What did the individual/group in question state that showed such bigotry, hate, and intolerance? Here's the statement I found by doing an Internet search, "That matter is very sensitive, very touchy. As a Muslim, I am not in favour of it . . . it is not accepted by the majority of countries. My opinion is not in favour of this matter at all. I think it's not really acceptable by our religion, our tradition."
Did you catch any hate speech at all? Just the opposite. He said it was a sensitive matter and seemed to treat it with respect. Intolerant? He said he was not in favor of it, but later recognized that "there are some countries that allow that". Does this mean that any time we are not in favor of something, that automatically makes us a bigot? It automatically makes us a hateful person because we don't accept all ideas, or at least the politically correct ones? What kind of logic is this?
This is the new prejudice: To prejudge someone with a differing viewpoint, call them names, and label them hateful and intolerant (which is exactly how the accuser is usually acting). It is being prejudice against anyone who doesn't agree with us and label them the "bad guy" in an effort to get people to accept our views and reject theirs. This new prejudice is running rampant in our society. In every news story that deals with opposing opinions/positions see if you can't recognize it. I see it all the time in the media. I see political figures use it regularly as a weapon against the other party. It's easy to call other people names, to make a straw man argument, and to throw out unsubstantiated accusations. Usually those who resort to such things do so because they don't have a leg to stand on themselves.
So, what was this differing opinion about that resulted in such irrational hostility? Does it matter? If you really want to know, go ahead and do an Internet search based on the direct quotes I used above. You may be surprised. You may even change your mind about who you think the "bad guy" is. If you do, you just might prove my point.
What is a prejudice? The Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition gives this etymology: "Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin praejudicium previous judgment, damage, from prae- + judicium judgment." In other words, prejudice is a preconceived judgment or opinion. The same source continues: "an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge" and "an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics."
This week Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Republican United States Representative for Florida's 18th congressional district, who is currently the most senior Republican woman in the U.S. House, reportedly made this statement: "The [enter any opposing stance] bigotry spewed by this ... shill demonstrates once again that [there are] advocates of hate and intolerance."
Bigotry? Shill? Hate? Intolerance? Sounds like we already meet the criteria for "an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics." "Well, maybe it was deserved," you may think. What did the individual/group in question state that showed such bigotry, hate, and intolerance? Here's the statement I found by doing an Internet search, "That matter is very sensitive, very touchy. As a Muslim, I am not in favour of it . . . it is not accepted by the majority of countries. My opinion is not in favour of this matter at all. I think it's not really acceptable by our religion, our tradition."
Did you catch any hate speech at all? Just the opposite. He said it was a sensitive matter and seemed to treat it with respect. Intolerant? He said he was not in favor of it, but later recognized that "there are some countries that allow that". Does this mean that any time we are not in favor of something, that automatically makes us a bigot? It automatically makes us a hateful person because we don't accept all ideas, or at least the politically correct ones? What kind of logic is this?
This is the new prejudice: To prejudge someone with a differing viewpoint, call them names, and label them hateful and intolerant (which is exactly how the accuser is usually acting). It is being prejudice against anyone who doesn't agree with us and label them the "bad guy" in an effort to get people to accept our views and reject theirs. This new prejudice is running rampant in our society. In every news story that deals with opposing opinions/positions see if you can't recognize it. I see it all the time in the media. I see political figures use it regularly as a weapon against the other party. It's easy to call other people names, to make a straw man argument, and to throw out unsubstantiated accusations. Usually those who resort to such things do so because they don't have a leg to stand on themselves.
So, what was this differing opinion about that resulted in such irrational hostility? Does it matter? If you really want to know, go ahead and do an Internet search based on the direct quotes I used above. You may be surprised. You may even change your mind about who you think the "bad guy" is. If you do, you just might prove my point.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Health Care Agreement
Last Wednesday President Barack Obama addressed Congress. In his address he spoke of those who oppose his health care plan and say it contains death panels. He called them liars. When Pres. Obama said his plan wouldn't offer free care to illegal immigrants, South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson shouted "You lie!" There was a big uproar over stating that the President lied. No uproar over the President saying anyone else lied. There were many calls to show the President respect. But shouldn't the President show respect to others as well? There shouldn't be a double standard. I'm not saying President Obama lied, but is saying someone lies disrespectful if they are lying? History has shown that past presidents have lied. Wouldn't this country be better off if we were allowed our free speech and called politicians (respectfully, of course) on their false statements? Isn't that one of the main reasons our founding fathers felt it was so necessary for us to have free speech?
There was a news report this week that stated the Democrats and Republicans agree on 80% of health care reform. It didn't seem like a scientific 80%, but just a way of saying both sides agree much more than they disagree. According to reports the biggest disagreement is over having government-run health care. News flash: we already have two government-run health care programs. Ever heard of Medicaid and Medicare? Reports are constantly being aired that both programs will run out of money because spending practices are unsustainable. What makes us think a third government-run program will magically be any different?
Let's go back to the 80% agreement issue and for the sake of argument accept that 80% figure. In other words, our legislature has the opportunity to pass legislation to allegedly improve health care in this country, but because they're not getting 100% of their way 100% of the time, they want to throw out 80% of what they can improve? Doesn't that seem petty? That depends.
Successful legislators are grand negotiators. One of the greatest tools in negotiating is leverage. So they are all trying to leverage their agreement on the 80% in order to get more of what they want. After all, why settle for 80% when you can have 90% or even 99.44%? But the best negotiators know how far their leverage will take them and they don't hope for the impossible. As a servant of the people, which is what a legislator should be, you don't make the people suffer by getting nothing just because you want to look good by getting a few more tenths of a percentage in your favor.
So is there any valid reason to hold out for 100%? If it's for ethical, moral or legal grounds, then yes. Would it be illegal to have government-run health care? Apparently not since we already have it. Though many would argue it shouldn't be legal based upon our capitalist society versus one that is socialist or communist.
Many find it hard to define the difference between moral and ethical. They are typically used synonymously and will not be differentiated in this composition. They will encompass that which is considered right and wrong as well as refer to fair and/or acceptable treatment. Would it be immoral/unethical for the government not to offer health care? In other words, is it somehow morally wrong / ethically ignoble for the government if they don't run a health care system? If so, then our founding fathers established an immoral/unethical government. Remember, the Declaration of Independence does not declare that the unalienable rights are: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of health care." It may be argued that a government is ethically reprehensible if it doesn't at least try to make health care available to all citizens, but how can it be argued that government must run it or it's immoral? For example, the government has established law that all drivers must have car insurance, but the government didn't start their own car insurance company. Why must they do it for health care?
80%, 65%, or whatever amount of agreement there may be. How moral and/or ethical is it for our legislators to continue to quibble amongst themselves rather than to make at least a minor advancement, a small step in the right direction, to improve the health care system in this country? In the aforementioned speech President Obama stated, "Well, the time for bickering is over." Indeed.
There was a news report this week that stated the Democrats and Republicans agree on 80% of health care reform. It didn't seem like a scientific 80%, but just a way of saying both sides agree much more than they disagree. According to reports the biggest disagreement is over having government-run health care. News flash: we already have two government-run health care programs. Ever heard of Medicaid and Medicare? Reports are constantly being aired that both programs will run out of money because spending practices are unsustainable. What makes us think a third government-run program will magically be any different?
Let's go back to the 80% agreement issue and for the sake of argument accept that 80% figure. In other words, our legislature has the opportunity to pass legislation to allegedly improve health care in this country, but because they're not getting 100% of their way 100% of the time, they want to throw out 80% of what they can improve? Doesn't that seem petty? That depends.
Successful legislators are grand negotiators. One of the greatest tools in negotiating is leverage. So they are all trying to leverage their agreement on the 80% in order to get more of what they want. After all, why settle for 80% when you can have 90% or even 99.44%? But the best negotiators know how far their leverage will take them and they don't hope for the impossible. As a servant of the people, which is what a legislator should be, you don't make the people suffer by getting nothing just because you want to look good by getting a few more tenths of a percentage in your favor.
So is there any valid reason to hold out for 100%? If it's for ethical, moral or legal grounds, then yes. Would it be illegal to have government-run health care? Apparently not since we already have it. Though many would argue it shouldn't be legal based upon our capitalist society versus one that is socialist or communist.
Many find it hard to define the difference between moral and ethical. They are typically used synonymously and will not be differentiated in this composition. They will encompass that which is considered right and wrong as well as refer to fair and/or acceptable treatment. Would it be immoral/unethical for the government not to offer health care? In other words, is it somehow morally wrong / ethically ignoble for the government if they don't run a health care system? If so, then our founding fathers established an immoral/unethical government. Remember, the Declaration of Independence does not declare that the unalienable rights are: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of health care." It may be argued that a government is ethically reprehensible if it doesn't at least try to make health care available to all citizens, but how can it be argued that government must run it or it's immoral? For example, the government has established law that all drivers must have car insurance, but the government didn't start their own car insurance company. Why must they do it for health care?
80%, 65%, or whatever amount of agreement there may be. How moral and/or ethical is it for our legislators to continue to quibble amongst themselves rather than to make at least a minor advancement, a small step in the right direction, to improve the health care system in this country? In the aforementioned speech President Obama stated, "Well, the time for bickering is over." Indeed.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Lockerbie No Longer Be "Lockered" Up
Last Thursday Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, aka the Lockerbie Bomber, was released from a Scottish prison allegedly on the grounds of compassion. I say allegedly because there have been accusations that he was released to remove roadblocks hindering Britain’s leading oil companies from seeking multibillion-dollar oil deals with Libya. Since these are currently only allegations let's just focus on the premise that he was let out of prison on compassionate grounds. Scottish justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, "said that the 'humanity' that prompted his decision was 'a defining characteristic of Scotland and the Scottish people.'”
Comments have been made that the Lockerbie Bomber showed no compassion for the innocents he murdered so why should compassion be extended to him. I commend those who feel that is the wrong yardstick to go by, but instead take the higher ground. But does the higher ground mean that compassion should trump justice?
Mr. Megrahi served only eight years of a life sentence imposed by a specially convened Scottish court in the Netherlands, which declared he serve a minimum of 27 years. If Scotland defines itself as being humane by releasing a convicted mass murderer after serving less than 1/3 of his minimum sentence, shouldn't they release everyone in their prisons who have served only 1/3 of their minimum sentence? Oh, that's right, Mr. Megrahi is supposed to be dying (aren't we all?). Hmm, I thought that's what a life sentence was about: that you die in prison.
Make no mistakes about it, compassion must never overrule the dictates of justice. If justice is met, then let us be as compassionate as we humanly can. If justice has not been met, then let us be compassionate within the bounds of not breaking or bending the rules or slapping justice in the face. Otherwise why don't we just decide to be super compassionate and let everyone out of prison? If terrorists decide to take over our country, let's just be compassionate and not fight them so they can mercilessly carry out genocide? How compassionate would that be to our citizens? It turns out it wouldn't be compassionate at all. You see, showing misguided compassion towards one can turn out to be cruelty to many others.
Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi was flown home in a V.I.P. jetliner to scenes of a hero's welcome in Tripoli, Libya. (BTW mainstream media, thanks for eating out of terrorists' hands and prominently displaying such propaganda.) The son of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi (Libyan leader), Saif al-Islam el-Qaddafi, held up the hand of the Lockerbie Bomber upon his return to Tripoli as if in triumph. Sounds to me like slapping justice in the face.
Which is more compassionate? To "locker" up a convicted mass murderer or to "locker" up Lady Justice? Good thing Lady Justice is blind, otherwise she just might see that slap in the face coming.
Comments have been made that the Lockerbie Bomber showed no compassion for the innocents he murdered so why should compassion be extended to him. I commend those who feel that is the wrong yardstick to go by, but instead take the higher ground. But does the higher ground mean that compassion should trump justice?
Mr. Megrahi served only eight years of a life sentence imposed by a specially convened Scottish court in the Netherlands, which declared he serve a minimum of 27 years. If Scotland defines itself as being humane by releasing a convicted mass murderer after serving less than 1/3 of his minimum sentence, shouldn't they release everyone in their prisons who have served only 1/3 of their minimum sentence? Oh, that's right, Mr. Megrahi is supposed to be dying (aren't we all?). Hmm, I thought that's what a life sentence was about: that you die in prison.
Make no mistakes about it, compassion must never overrule the dictates of justice. If justice is met, then let us be as compassionate as we humanly can. If justice has not been met, then let us be compassionate within the bounds of not breaking or bending the rules or slapping justice in the face. Otherwise why don't we just decide to be super compassionate and let everyone out of prison? If terrorists decide to take over our country, let's just be compassionate and not fight them so they can mercilessly carry out genocide? How compassionate would that be to our citizens? It turns out it wouldn't be compassionate at all. You see, showing misguided compassion towards one can turn out to be cruelty to many others.
Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi was flown home in a V.I.P. jetliner to scenes of a hero's welcome in Tripoli, Libya. (BTW mainstream media, thanks for eating out of terrorists' hands and prominently displaying such propaganda.) The son of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi (Libyan leader), Saif al-Islam el-Qaddafi, held up the hand of the Lockerbie Bomber upon his return to Tripoli as if in triumph. Sounds to me like slapping justice in the face.
Which is more compassionate? To "locker" up a convicted mass murderer or to "locker" up Lady Justice? Good thing Lady Justice is blind, otherwise she just might see that slap in the face coming.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Science vs. Religion
To listen to the media one might come to the conclusion that science and religion are at odds with each other. Are they? Do they need to be? What is science? What is religion?
One of the most common definitions we're familiar with for science is the third one listed in the Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. When it comes to religion the same dictionary refers us to the word religious which is defined as: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality. Hmm, ultimate reality, knowledge, basically the search for truth, doesn't sound like they're all that different.
"But one is based on ignorant blind belief while the other uses hard facts," you may be screaming. Since we're looking for similarities here, let's apply the scientific method to religion and also see if there isn't any need for unsubstantiated belief or faith in science.
Though there are variations on the scientific method we will use the following:
1. Definition - Define what we're trying to find out
2. Observation - Observe and gather information
3. Hypothesis - An effort to use logical reasoning to explain the data
4. Experimentation - Perform experiments and document results
5. Analysis - Analyze the results
6. Conclusion - Decide what the data mean
7. Peer Review - Make sure others can repeat the experiment with the same results
8. Refine - Wash, rinse, repeat as necessary to confirm
The scientific community understands that there's a difference when using this method for social sciences in contrast to the natural sciences, but it's still a good method. My intent here is not to prove or disprove anything, nor to write an exhaustive doctoral thesis on the matter, but simply to demonstrate how the scientific method can be, and has been, applied to religion.
1. Definition: Is there some sort of supreme creator of the universe? 2. Observation: The universe exists. It is complex. 3. Hypothesis: Humans can create things. A being with greater knowledge (i.e., science) could create complex things. The hypothesis is that a supreme creator exists. 4. Experimentation: If a being exists there should be a way to communicate with it. If our minds were created by another being, this other being should be able to read the thoughts from our minds. The experiment is to use our thoughts to try and communicate (i.e., prayer). 5. Analysis: Thoughts were used to communicate. Thoughts (communications) came back to the mind as well as a change in feelings. 6. Conclusion: Communication was achieved with the supreme creator. 7. Peer Review: Millions upon millions--if not billions--of others have tried the experiment with the same results. 8. Refine: The results of the experiment are consistent and communication becomes easier as we learn to refine the experiment.
Remember, just because we can't build a machine to detect or recreate something going on (e.g., prayer), doesn't mean it can't exist. We currently don't have a machine that can recreate gravity; that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
OK, how about the flip side? Is faith ever required for science? First let's define faith by referring once again to Webster's: firm belief in something for which there is no proof : something that is believed especially with strong conviction. Most Darwinists seem to have a very strong conviction that the missing link exists, yet to date there is no proof; a missing link has never been found. Does science require faith? Check.
Looks like science and religion have a lot in common. Since they are both efforts to discover truth, they should not be at odds with each other. Instead of scientists fighting with religionists and religionists fighting with scientists, how about we work together to come to the knowledge of the truth?
One of the most common definitions we're familiar with for science is the third one listed in the Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. When it comes to religion the same dictionary refers us to the word religious which is defined as: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality. Hmm, ultimate reality, knowledge, basically the search for truth, doesn't sound like they're all that different.
"But one is based on ignorant blind belief while the other uses hard facts," you may be screaming. Since we're looking for similarities here, let's apply the scientific method to religion and also see if there isn't any need for unsubstantiated belief or faith in science.
Though there are variations on the scientific method we will use the following:
1. Definition - Define what we're trying to find out
2. Observation - Observe and gather information
3. Hypothesis - An effort to use logical reasoning to explain the data
4. Experimentation - Perform experiments and document results
5. Analysis - Analyze the results
6. Conclusion - Decide what the data mean
7. Peer Review - Make sure others can repeat the experiment with the same results
8. Refine - Wash, rinse, repeat as necessary to confirm
The scientific community understands that there's a difference when using this method for social sciences in contrast to the natural sciences, but it's still a good method. My intent here is not to prove or disprove anything, nor to write an exhaustive doctoral thesis on the matter, but simply to demonstrate how the scientific method can be, and has been, applied to religion.
1. Definition: Is there some sort of supreme creator of the universe? 2. Observation: The universe exists. It is complex. 3. Hypothesis: Humans can create things. A being with greater knowledge (i.e., science) could create complex things. The hypothesis is that a supreme creator exists. 4. Experimentation: If a being exists there should be a way to communicate with it. If our minds were created by another being, this other being should be able to read the thoughts from our minds. The experiment is to use our thoughts to try and communicate (i.e., prayer). 5. Analysis: Thoughts were used to communicate. Thoughts (communications) came back to the mind as well as a change in feelings. 6. Conclusion: Communication was achieved with the supreme creator. 7. Peer Review: Millions upon millions--if not billions--of others have tried the experiment with the same results. 8. Refine: The results of the experiment are consistent and communication becomes easier as we learn to refine the experiment.
Remember, just because we can't build a machine to detect or recreate something going on (e.g., prayer), doesn't mean it can't exist. We currently don't have a machine that can recreate gravity; that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
OK, how about the flip side? Is faith ever required for science? First let's define faith by referring once again to Webster's: firm belief in something for which there is no proof : something that is believed especially with strong conviction. Most Darwinists seem to have a very strong conviction that the missing link exists, yet to date there is no proof; a missing link has never been found. Does science require faith? Check.
Looks like science and religion have a lot in common. Since they are both efforts to discover truth, they should not be at odds with each other. Instead of scientists fighting with religionists and religionists fighting with scientists, how about we work together to come to the knowledge of the truth?
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Drugs and Taxes
Reportedly Massachusetts Representative Stephen Lynch recently referred to a proposed beer tax increase as a hate crime. And according to the AP this week, "A bill to tax and regulate marijuana in California like alcohol would generate nearly $1.4 billion in revenue for the cash-strapped state, according to an official analysis released Wednesday by tax officials." These types of taxes are typically called 'sin taxes'. Why do you think that is?
The former is an attempt to fund the Obama administration’s health care reform program. The latter, as mentioned, is to generate more revenue for a state. Would either work? Should they?
One blogger denounced the health care sin tax for three reasons. His first argument is that they don't work. He cited that people will then buy less, resulting is less revenue for the government. But is increased revenue the true purpose of a sin tax? Isn't its purpose being that since you're going to 'sin' anyway, you should pay for the ill effects you'll be causing by your 'sinning'? Increased alcohol consumption results in higher medical problems (and therefore costs) so why should others paying medical premiums pay more for others' bad decisions? If people really do consume less because the price is higher (due to taxes), then they'll increase their health resulting in decreased medical costs for everyone. I guess it depends upon what you mean by the tax 'working,' but it looks like it works to me. If they work then why not legalize marijuana in California? Remember our definition of something working in this regard: it decreases usage of something bad for us and/or society. Legalization increases use and according to the article, "Marijuana use would likely increase by about 30 percent once the law took effect...." So, no, it would be a bad idea to legalize marijuana in California.
The second argument was that these types of taxes result in job losses. Again, what is our goal? If tomorrow, all of a sudden, illegal drug usage stopped and all the drug lords and their ilk lost their 'jobs' would we cry foul? Wouldn't we be happy they lost that kind of 'job' and wouldn't we wish they would go out and get a legitimate job that would help rather than hurt society? One of the arguments for legalizing the use of marijuana is that it would create 'legitimate' jobs and businesses. It probably would--more EMTs, more police, etc.--but at what cost to society? California might be able to generate $1.4 billion in revenue, but how much of that would go toward counteracting the ill effects of marijuana use? My guess is that it would cost much more than $1.4 billion.
The final argument is that constituents don’t like them. I'm sure drug lords wouldn't like it if people stopped using their drugs either, but that's not the point. No one likes taxes to go up on the stuff they use. But should we be 'users' in the first place? Maybe the 'crime' here is not 'hating' the loss of controlling our own minds and giving that control up to a chemical.
The former is an attempt to fund the Obama administration’s health care reform program. The latter, as mentioned, is to generate more revenue for a state. Would either work? Should they?
One blogger denounced the health care sin tax for three reasons. His first argument is that they don't work. He cited that people will then buy less, resulting is less revenue for the government. But is increased revenue the true purpose of a sin tax? Isn't its purpose being that since you're going to 'sin' anyway, you should pay for the ill effects you'll be causing by your 'sinning'? Increased alcohol consumption results in higher medical problems (and therefore costs) so why should others paying medical premiums pay more for others' bad decisions? If people really do consume less because the price is higher (due to taxes), then they'll increase their health resulting in decreased medical costs for everyone. I guess it depends upon what you mean by the tax 'working,' but it looks like it works to me. If they work then why not legalize marijuana in California? Remember our definition of something working in this regard: it decreases usage of something bad for us and/or society. Legalization increases use and according to the article, "Marijuana use would likely increase by about 30 percent once the law took effect...." So, no, it would be a bad idea to legalize marijuana in California.
The second argument was that these types of taxes result in job losses. Again, what is our goal? If tomorrow, all of a sudden, illegal drug usage stopped and all the drug lords and their ilk lost their 'jobs' would we cry foul? Wouldn't we be happy they lost that kind of 'job' and wouldn't we wish they would go out and get a legitimate job that would help rather than hurt society? One of the arguments for legalizing the use of marijuana is that it would create 'legitimate' jobs and businesses. It probably would--more EMTs, more police, etc.--but at what cost to society? California might be able to generate $1.4 billion in revenue, but how much of that would go toward counteracting the ill effects of marijuana use? My guess is that it would cost much more than $1.4 billion.
The final argument is that constituents don’t like them. I'm sure drug lords wouldn't like it if people stopped using their drugs either, but that's not the point. No one likes taxes to go up on the stuff they use. But should we be 'users' in the first place? Maybe the 'crime' here is not 'hating' the loss of controlling our own minds and giving that control up to a chemical.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)