Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2007 April
2005 February
2005 January
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
My Links
My essay: The Immorality of Marriage
The Onion
SelectSmart
Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas!
Tom Robbins Quotes
Funny Name Analysis
Bushisms
Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain
Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell
Life, Liberty, Logic
Wasting My Time
RedTigress's Blog
Jimmytherighteous's Blog
Octo6er's Blog
Nivek's Blog
Magicjoejoe's Blog
Littlemrmahatma's Blog
Kurtmaddox's Blog
Winstonsmith's Blog
Drforbush's Blog
Juniperflux's Blog
Iron Blog Religion!
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| What I've learned about Catholicism |
| 03.31.04 (10:59 pm) [edit] |
|
In my last post, I asked for any Catholics that were willing to to explain their religion to me, as I had never found a Catholic willing to discuss such matters. [url=http://juniperflux.tblog.com]Juniperflux[/url] did an excellent job of explaining her former faith. Unfortunately, I had anticipated most of the responses she had to offer for my questions. And the fun, as well as frustrating, part of discussions such as these is that there is little hope of reconciling all the differences, and the arguments can easily go back and forth indeterminately. The questions I asked involved the problem of evil, that is, why an all-loving and all-powerful being would allow evil to exist in the world. As was explained by several commentors, the basic premise is that God created man and gave him free will so that he could choose to love Him, thus the faith would be true. I am all about truth and believing in things in earnest, so this aspect is somewhat appealing. However, it still doesn't appease my skeptical nature. I mentioned that it makes little sense that God would need such recognition, that it would be prideful of God to desire faithful devotion from His creation. This, of course, goes against the idea of a perfect being, as vanity and egotistical desire would be imperfections. It was pointed out that considering God's motives in such a light is applying human traits to God. Since anthropomorphism is the basis for our understanding of God, it makes little sense to me for some traits of God to be human-like while others are explained away as impossible to be attributed to God, a perfect being. This contradiction- that if God is a perfect being He would have no need for our faith- is basically a question of God's motive. According to Catholic faith, God's motive is beyond our finite capabilities to understand. This basically puts an end to this particular discussion, as at this point you must decide either to accept that you cannot know certain things and choose to have faith, or you can decide that there is no reason to have faith in something you cannot understand. [url=http://drforbush.tblog.com]DrForbush[/url] pointed out the ways Catholics understand God and His creation: [i]...He also reveals Himself to us through contemplative prayer and meditation. So, when new information about the Universe is revealed through scientific discovery a Catholic isn’t tied down to assuming we already knew the answers. [/i] I'd say that's rather convenient. There is also scant proof that what a person experiences through meditation or prayer is actually God revealing Himself. I would say that it is more likely an instilled belief in God that results in the [i]belief[/i] that a person is experiencing something. Cultural traditions and personal beliefs dictate the experiences a person has in their own mind. Also, isn't there a better way for God to reveal Himself? I mean, if He cares about us so much that He wants us to be saved by having faith in Him, why doesn't he give us true reasons to believe He exists? Testing our faith seems cruel to me. I agree with DrForbush when he says that without free will and without sin in the world, the relationship between man and God would be nothing less than that of a slave and his master, thus demeaning the relationship. But again, I don't understand the necessity of such a relationship for God, especially given that the stakes are so high for us humans- if we don't have faith in Him, he punishes us for all eternity. Why does God need us to love Him? I appreciate all the comments regarding Catholicism/Christianity and hope that this has cleared up some things. Any additional thoughts are more than welcome. |
| 21 Comments |
| Does Catholic dogma forbid defending the religion? |
| 03.28.04 (4:50 pm) [edit] |
| The primary difference I have noticed among Catholics and Protestants of various factions is not just that there is or isn't a Pope, it is that, while most Christians will defend their religion solely by the use of Bible quotes and repetitive scripture, Catholics refuse to explain their faith to us non-believers. In discussions on Christianity, a typical Christian, unless he is Catholic, will answer my questions by repeating the Bible's message and explaining how God's Word is to be understood. While that isn't exactly productive or convincing, at least I am given some answer. Any Catholic I have discussed religion with has merely given some brief response as to how I am wrong, but has not even attempted to demonstrate how I am wrong. Whether it is intentional or not, this just leads me to think that my questions are unanswerable by the faith, further proving my points about the absurdity and unappealing nature of the religion. I have been told by several Catholics that I just don't understand the religion, therefore they refuse to discuss it with me. But that's not really helpful- if I am just misunderstanding Catholicism, why not explain it to me? Why not answer my questions? I do know quite a bit about your faith, but do you? Thanks to Professor Sam Fohr, I could give a lecture on the symbolism in the Bible, or explain what the vertical and horizontal axes of the cross represent. As far as the dogma is concerned, I am not as well-educated, and this is where I need your help. As the title infers, the conclusion I have reached thus far is that Catholic dogma considers defending Christianity a sin- maybe too much exposure to the ideas of evil athiests is contagiously damning? Any Catholics out there willing to actually discuss their religion, your comments would be appreciated. |
| 27 Comments |
| Democrats are wrong! Republicans are wrong! Now support me! |
| 03.27.04 (6:16 pm) [edit] |
|
Every four years the Presidential campaigns seem to bring out the absolute nastiness of politics. Mudslinging, character assassinations, and digging up dirt on the opponent are standard for politicians as well as their supports. Just look around tblog and you'll see those on the far left sparring against those on the far right, not by putting forth information as to why their candidate or their view is better, but by criticizing the opposition. There certainly is some validity to this style of politics, but doesn't it make more sense to present the positive aspects of your own view rather than just bringing out the negative sides of your opponent's view? This is true of members of all political party, not just the two major ones. I read earlier today the transcript from Libertarian candidate Gary Nolan's brief interview on Fox News a few days ago and he was guilty of the same pointless rhetoric. Rather than explaining the ideas making up his platform and how he would implement his policies, he simply attacked the views of Republicans and Democrats on the issues he was asked about. I suppose it is much easier and seemingly more effective to focus on tearing down the viewpoint in opposition of yours, but you have to at least present your own ideas and demonstrating how your view is better than your opponents has to be a better and more convincing strategy than just criticizing the other views. So I offer a challenge to all who post on political matters to focus on explaining and defending your own positions rather than just attacking your opponent's. And not by merely projecting the problem onto other groups (ie Bush isn't to blame for the intel failure because everyone else believed it too)- that does little for your argument. |
| 8 Comments |
| Choice |
| 03.25.04 (10:34 pm) [edit] |
|
The most important word in the English language, though it is seemingly neglected quite often, especially in American politics, is [i]choice[/i]. Without choice, freedom is meaningless; and without freedom, life's meaning matters little. With freedom comes responsibility and accountability, choice permits freedom and allows for greater individual empowerment. The underlying principle of choice is that the more options available, the greater freedom is granted through choice. Why then is there such a dichotomy in much of our politics? The land of the free would seemingly be a land of choice, a land full of options. But the majority see only two options for every situation. Rather than search for numerous options in order to make a choice, many settle for either one side of an issue or the other, as though there are only two sides to every story. In the context of politics, this mentality of one side against the other, with little room for dissent from other angles (other options), is seen in our Presidential elections. It is the Democrat against the Republican, and most who select a particular candidate do so as much in opposition of the other side as in support of the candidate of their choosing. If you're a Democrat, your mentality is likely 'anyone is better than Bush,' whereas the Republicans feel that anyone that is not a Democrat is best. This contempt for the opposing party would be perfectly valid, if the two parties were the only options. Rather than so much as entertaining the idea of another option, most are content to wage these political wars based not on whose ideas are the best, but on whose are the least worst. At election time, a great many voters will choose 'the lesser of two evils' rather than permitting themselves to make the choice to vote their true will. Republicans and Democrats are not the only options we have, and by voting solely along those lines we resign ourselves to a lack of choice- it sends the message that we do not need choice. To overcome the hindrance of neglecting our choices, we must first make the choice to preserve our options. By voting for a third party candidate, we can set the path for a shift in the mentality of American politics. Don't neglect your options, and don't desert your true freedom- make [b]choice[/b] the most important word in your vocabulary. |
| 3 Comments |
| I pledge allegiance... what's the big deal about two little words? |
| 03.25.04 (8:15 pm) [edit] |
|
Looking around tblog today, I have noticed several posts (including my own) on the Supreme Court case in which atheist Michael Newdow is trying to have the Pledge of Allegiance returned to its original version, arguing that the 'under God' phrase is unconstitutional. A lot of people simply don't think it's a big enough deal to be causing such controversy, but it is. The reason it is not seen as a big deal by many is that reciting the Pledge isn't forced on anyone- you can choose not to say it, or not to say the two words. But does that really matter? We encourage censorship of what is considered obscene language on the radio or tv, even though you could argue that if you don't like it you can change the station. The difference is that parents can decide what their children watch on tv or listen to on the radio, but must trust in their government when they send their children to public schools. So, to say that the children can simply opt out of reciting the Pledge and that makes it perfectly acceptible to have government officials lead students in this, is a cop-out. The basic issue at hand is whether or not the Pledge, in its current form, violates the Establishment Clause. Simply put, the insertion of the phrase 'under God' into the Pledge of Allegiance asserts that we are a nation that affirms the existence of God. Though this does not establish any particular religion, it restricts the openness of religious freedom. There is no room for polytheists, agnostics, or atheists in the statement 'under God.' Stating that we are 'one nation, under God, indivisible' is actually very divisive. A common misconception is that the desire to remove the words 'under God' from the Pledge is a move to prohibiting religious expression. However, for those who proclaim the separation of church and state to be of utmost importance- those supporting the removal of 'under God'- are supporting the constitution. One of the most basic rights outlined in the constitution and Bill of Rights is the freedom of religion. This means you have the freedom to worship as you please, and expressing your beliefs can fall under this category. Taking out 'under God' from the Pledge in no way infringes on the individual's right to express their religious beliefs. It only maintains the separation of church and state by prohibiting public schools from imposing this belief on all students. If it isn't a big deal, why not return the Pledge to its original form? Those wishing to express some religious belief- whatever that belief may be- has the freedom to do so. But the government cannot. Besides, do you really find two words added to an oath of patriotism for no reason other than fear (of communism, as the evils of this movement were grossly misunderstood to be because of a lack of religion, rather than forced egalitarianism- thus, it seemed that the only way to preserve our nation was to impose some religious standards; however, atheism does not a communist make) to be a positive thing? Can anyone offer a good reason for keeping the phrase 'under God' in a Pledge recited daily by impresionable schoolchildren? |
| 1 Comments |
| Is 'under God' unconstitutional? |
| 03.24.04 (11:04 pm) [edit] |
|
According to public opinion, something like 90% feel that the words 'under God' should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance. But public opinion does not equate to legality. As Michael Newdow argued his case for the removal of the words he sees as unconstitional, the questions over the intentions of the founding fathers and constitutionality enter the picture. The best argumens for having the words remain a part of the Pledge are that the majority favors this; that they do not denote any particular religion; that other government-endorsed oaths, as well as our money, include a reference to God; and that the founding fathers mentioned a deity in several writings. The arguments supporting the removal of the words 'under God' include the notion of acknowledgment of a deity as endorsing religion, even if it is not a specific faith; the forced repitition of or exposure to a statement that affirms religious belief in the public schools violates the Establishment Clause; that the Pledge did not originally contain these words, and returning it to its original form would be truer to patriotism; and that the government simply should stay out of the private issue of religion. I have no problem with a person expressing their religious beliefs, but when religion becomes a matter of the government, it is dangerous. I say Newdow is correct in stating that the Pledge, in its current form, is unconstitutional. What do you think? |
| 11 Comments |
| 9/11: Internal and external factors |
| 03.24.04 (9:36 pm) [edit] |
|
The goal of the 9/11 panel's investigation is to determine what mistakes led to the nation's susceptibility to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and discover where to lay the blame. Did the Clinton administration neglect the impending threat of al Qaeda, thus allowing the attacks to occur with relative ease, or was the Bush administration simply ill-equipped to manage the evidence of threats given? While this is an important issue to resolve, it doesn't cover the situation entirely, and any results yeilded from these investigations will lack clarity and only explain the partial causes of 9/11. To fully examine the events leading up to 9/11, two basic questions must be answered: Why and How. The question of why terrorist attacks aimed at the World Trade Center and Pentagon occurred relates to external factors, while the question of how they were executed and not prevented are of an internal nature. As such, the 9/11 panel is only aimed at discovering the internal reasons that the attacks were not prevented. Based on the information I have encountered, it wouldn't be entirely wrong to blame the internal factors on everyone. We can view with 20/20 hindsight that not enough was done to prevent these attacks, but can we figure out why? The most likely reason the precautions were not adequate is complacency. There was a lack of emphasis on terrorism, especially the potential for attacks on American soil. Not only was the nation all too comfortable in its niche as the world's leader, the notion of impending terrorist attacks was not something readily addressed, as there seemed to be no need to worry about potential danger when we had been safe for so long, and had successfully thwarted several previous attacks. [i]"In 1999, the bipartisan Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security in the 21st Century accurately warned that "Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers," and that the U.S. government was not organized to meet the threat. yet when the commission's final report ws issued in March 2001, The New York Times did not cover it, nor did the White House embrace it."[/i]- Joseph S. Nye, Jr., from "Government's Challenge: Getting Serious About Terrorism" George Tenet also testified in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee that Osama bin Laden's global network was the most immediate and serious threat to the U.S. in February of 2001. It's not that we lacked forsight; we lacked the means to protect the nation from terrorist infiltration. Not enough attention was paid to the numerous warnings by government officials and the like that bin Laden was going to attack. The typical response to such warnings were that if it was so likely that al Qaeda was planning attacks agains the US, why hadn't they happened yet? With this understood, the most important thing to be understood from the 9/11 panel's investigation is not who is to blame for the neglect- no one is exempt from the blame- but how our handling of counter-terrorism has shifted in the aftermath. Naturally, there was the shift from the realm of law enforcement to national security, thus treating terrorism not as a crime with evidence and testimony, but by anticipating actions and dealing with them without the tight constraints of the law. The questions to be addressed in regard to the aftermath of the attacks are whether we are better equipped to deal with and prevent such attacks in the future, and whether President Bush's actions were appropriate in aiming the 'war on terror' at Iraq. We'll see what is decided on these matters; I have a feeling the answers to both will be, sadly no. |
| 0 Comments |
| On morality, Christian style |
| 03.21.04 (3:31 pm) [edit] |
|
A common argument given by Christians to support their theory of God is the moral argument. This is a two-part argument in which it is stated that (1) we need God for morality in the world and (2) we need God to bring justice into the world. The first statement seems to rely on the notion that morality is exclusive to religious belief; and, more specifically, on a belief in and reverence for the Christian God. Apparently, we, as humans, are incapable of comprehending right and wrong without the guidance of a supreme being. This is a theory that would be difficult to argue with if everyone did accept Christianity's concept of God. However, since many do not and are still capable of exercising morality, this theory is shot. Athiests are not inherently immoral or even amoral, and neither are Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, or any number of folks who do not believe in the Christian God. The second argument on morality is that God provides the ultimate justice- without God, a form of eternal chaos would ensue, in that we would have no ultimate punishment or reward for our lives to be received in death. By this idea, those who do good deeds in life are rewarded in death and those who perform evil acts in life are punished. This provides a basic incentive to do good. The problem with this argument is that there is no need for a judgment of our lives after we die, as we are subject to justice in life- all actions have consequences and repercussions. This notion also denies any meaning or purpose to this life, except for a means of determining our "life" after death. Furthermore, according to the Christian religion, to attain salvation, you must accept Christ as savior and repent for your sins. And that's it. This negates the very principle of morality, and of justice. To quote mblog (and the inspiration for this post): "the notion of salvation through faith alone undermines the very concept of morality. If Hitler can ask for forgiveness on his deathbed and go to heaven, as Jerry Falwell stated he hoped happened, then living a life free of sin is pointless. Also, the notion that you can commit a sin against me, but not have to ask me for forgiveness, but get it from God also undermines this concept. If you can do whatever you want to me, but be forgiven for having faith alone, the faith does not do much good." In other words, Christianity's concept of salvation through faith in Christ opposes the idea of true morality. By implementing moral standards and striving to do good out of a desire to attain eternal rewards, it is a false morality. Thus, to believe in God (in the Christian sense) is to forego absolute morality. If I lack a belief in God but am still moral in my actions, my morality is much truer than a person who does good deeds to assuage and appease a superior being, in the hopes of receiving eternal rewards. Christian morality is rooted in falsity, thus the arguments for faith in God as a means of acheiving and realizing moral standards or to encourage a sense of justice in the world are also false. Well, it seems I have indulged in my typical anti-Christian libertarianism- I had no idea the two were even related, but I'm glad [url=http://reducto.tblog.com]reducto[/url] has shown me the light. |
| 4 Comments |
| On Original Sin, etc. |
| 03.19.04 (6:41 pm) [edit] |
|
Given the idea of a supernatural being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and entirely benevolent, here is how Eve's temptation in the Garden of Eden would more likely have gone. As the serpent, a force of Satan's evil, tempts Eve to take a bite of the forbidden fruit, God, an omniscient being, realizes what Eve's free will is about to result in. God forsees the future of mankind as a race of creatures predisposed to sin. He acknowledges the likelihood of strife, violence, and pain such a predisposition would incur. God's loving nature is concerned by this and He, being all-powerful, intervenes to prevent Eve from damning the entire human race. God truly saves our species, not by sending His only son to be murdered, but by ensuring that we are not capable of bringing such unnecessary harm onto ourselves. This makes better sense, does it not? Ah, but this goes against the notion of free will. If God chose to control Eve's actions by not allowing her to defy Him, we would not truly be free. But, conceiving of God as a perfect being who created man in His divine image, this inherent inclination to sin would not have been possible, unless God Himself was also guilty of sin. In which case, is He really perfect, and is He truly omnipotent? At any rate, given the circumstances as we can logically contemplate- that God created man and gave him free will so that he may choose to love God in earnest- why did Original Sin have to occur? The Original Sin is not even among the 7 deadly sins, it is based in defiance. Consider two children who are told by their father that they cannot have a piece of candy. The two children, when they think their father is not looking, sneak and eat the candy regardless, in an act of sheer defiance. This is how the infamous act in the Garden occured. Perhaps it was temptation that overcame Eve, but whether the temptation was for the fruit itself or for the act of defiance is difficult to say. I would be more apt to assert that human nature is more inclined to acts of defiance than giving into mere temptations of a more tangible nature. So, if we consider Original Sin to be rooted in an act of defiance- against God- the necessary conclusion is that God was angered by this defiance and chose to punish all of mankind for all eternity because of this. Going back to the analogy of a child eating candy after being told not to, this would be similar to the father punishing the child by kicking him out and then punishing his other children for their entire lives, as well as his grandchildren, and so on. A bit extreme? But we consider God to be just; in fact, He is seen to be the supreme force of Justice. As God is just, He eventually felt bad for overreacting to the original defiance by His creation. So, He decided to send His only son, Jesus, to the earth to save the human race. Jesus is born and, for most of his life, I couldn't tell you what he did. But, upon adulthood, he began vocalizing these radical ideas of brotherly love. As most ideas considered radical at one time, they were not popular among the majority of those encountered by Jesus. Eventually, these ideas lead to the extreme punishment of crucifixion. God's plan all along, it seems, was for His son to come to earth and start the religion his Father truly intended His creation to ascribe to, and then have the humans crucify His son so that all of mankinds' sins could be atoned for through the death of Jesus Christ. But wait a minute- God doesn't control the will of the people. Though He is omnipotent and omniscient, He would not have intervened in the life and brutal death of His son. So, why then did Christ die? The sinning humans chose to kill the son of God because they despised his message. This means that God's plan was not to have His son die for mankind, but to have him preach to the masses the messages of brotherly love that God wanted us to all embrace. In God's benevolence, when Jesus was killed, He chose to reward mankind by allowing for the atonement of their sins, so long as they accepted the message of Christianity and recognized His son as the savior and repented for their sins. So now we have the option of attaining the ultimate heavenly rewards in the afterlife, if we choose to commit our lives to the teachings of Jesus Christ. In doing so, we must forget the fact that if God was truly omnipotent He would not have given humans the will to commit sin, nor the will to harm themselves or others; neglect the fact that if God was truly benevolent, He would not have allowed evil in the world, and would not include brutal slayings and savage wars in His Plan; and disregard the notion that if God was truly omniscient, He could stop any cruel acts before they happen. If you allow yourself to be coaxed into believing that God works through you (and, given that God is omniscient, wouldn't that make it impossible for any human to have an original thought? That's a bit depressing), and your choices are only made under the supervision of the supreme being that created you, you can receive eternal rewards upon your death. If you choose not to truly live for yourself, you will be rewarded when you die. Isn't that exciting!? |
| 2 Comments |
| Are terrorists capable of overturning our government? |
| 03.15.04 (4:45 pm) [edit] |
|
As you are likely already aware of, Spain's elections resulted in the removal of the current government leaders. The main reason for this is that 90% of Spanish citizens opposed aiding the US-led war in Iraq, but Prime Minister Aznar backed the war regardless. With the recent attacks in Madrid, Aznar is being blamed for inviting bloodshed by supporting the war. So, does this mean that terrorism effected the replacement of Spain's governing body? And what does that mean to the US? Looking at things from a certain perspective, it does seem that the terrorist attacks resulted in the ousting of Spain's leadership. The message of the terrorists was perhaps given greater emphasis by the voters decision to change the leadership. In this light, it could seem as though the terrorists "won," but I think that is a bit misleading. Since the vast majority of Spain's population was against Aznar's decision to support the war in Iraq, it is quite likely that he would have been voted out anyway. However, I am sure that the attacks convinced any uncertain voters to cast their vote in opposition of Aznar. This could lend some momentum to the terrorist organization, as it shows that their actions do heed results. This, obviously, could have a dangerous effect on the U.S. Al Qaeda members are already equipped with a basic resolve that leads them to accomplish their tasks of terrorism by any means necessary. Knowing that their actions could have a direct effect on our government itself is likely to further this resolve as well as increase the urgency (in the minds of the terrorists) of attacking or bringing down the US. It could very well merely be a matter of time before we are attacked again, and our reactions could determine the course of future terrorist attacks. Could the very same thing happen in the US? If attacked prior to our Presidential elections, would US citizens be more likely to elect Bush or his opponent? I have a feeling American resolve would result in Bush's re-election, rather than the attacks being blamed on Bush. I think Americans have a certain resolve that is similar, although immensely differing, to the resolve of the terrorists. Whereas they have an uncompromising desire to attain their goal of terrorism to achieve whatever it is they hope to accomplish, Americans have a common goal to defend our nation and protect the freedoms we have as Americans. Ultimately, the battle could come down to whose resolve is stronger, and I am certain that the resolve of Americans (liberal, conservative, or otherwise) will prevail. |
| 12 Comments |
| What is God? |
| 03.15.04 (2:22 pm) [edit] |
| An excellent site offering philosophical insights as well as unique games to test your logic and ideas on all things philosophical, [url=http://www.philosophers.co.uk...]the Philosophers' Magazine Online[/url] has a new game in which you can create your own deity. You can select from a list the traits you feel would be necessary for your God to have and then the metaphysical engineers will tell you how feasible this God is in terms of the constraints of this universe. While it is quite clear that there is a bit of an atheistic bias in this game, as I don't think any combination of the traits is fully acceptable, it is an interesting exercise and you are provided with very good explanations, not just arguments. It is also an interesting activity because there is no way to have a logical discussion on the existence of God without first having a basic understanding of the definition of God. So, I urge you to try out the [url=http://www.philosophers.co.uk...]Do-It-Yourself Deity[/url] and see if your God is plausible. Let me know what you think. |
| 17 Comments |
| Is there a bias in the media? |
| 03.11.04 (9:20 pm) [edit] |
|
It is evident that the media is biased in what it chooses to report and the manner in which it is reported. Conservatives claim that we have a liberal media, that favors and caters to the left-wing agenda. Liberals point out that there are conservative biases in the media, claiming that the media is biased in favor of Republicans. Neither argument is wrong. The media is biased, not either liberally or conservatively, but both. Watching the various news channels, you will see consistent coverage of issues relating to both the Rupublican and Democratic agendas. The mainstream media does a decent job of portraying two sides to every issue- the problem is, there are more than two sides. There is a constant display of the dichotomy of American politics, as well as American culture, evidenced in the media. But the opinions of those not reflected by the two major parties are overlooked by the media. The media focuses solely on two sides to every issue, neglecting all other viewpoints. This is the nature of the true media bias. It isn't entirely something to be critical about, however. It would be an incredibly daunting task to report on all issues affecting all people and from all viewpoints available. This is why the media bias of only reporting two sides occurs. The mainstream media reports what is mainstream. The issues that are predominant in our society are given greater attention by the media and the views that are most prevalent are the views that are expressed and examined. There will always be some sort of media bias, as there is no way to reasonably cover all stories from all perspectives. However, the argument over whether the media is biased towards the liberals or conservatives is overlooking the basic fact that the true bias lies in [b]only[/b] those views being examined in the media. |
| 4 Comments |
| Speculation on why the poor are poor (and criminally inclined) |
| 03.04.04 (9:05 pm) [edit] |
|
This is merely speculation, stereotyping, and generalizing. Please take no offense, I could be easily lumped into the category of poor myself. This is also by no means profound or a unique concept. Alright, now that I've provided a disclaimer, I was considering the reasons poor people generally remain poor (or perhaps why they are poor to begin with). In general, a lack of money can be attributed to a low level of education. Without extensive education, a person is less eligible for work that pays well. The jobs requiring less education are mostly manual labor, physically draining. This physical drain in turn becomes an emotional drain, when the person finds himself exhausted from work with little to show for it, unable to make ends meet. When a person is drained physically and emotionally, they tend to desire some form of escape from the pressures of day to day life. This accounts for why many lower class citizens are perhaps more prone to alcoholism or taking up other addictive vices such as cigarette smoking or illegal drugs. These things are expensive. The person, once acquiring an addiction, begins to spend most of his money on making sure he has his vices. "Necessities" no longer refer to food and basic needs, but to whatever the person's escape of choice is. The person also feels justified in putting so much money into his vice because he works hard and feels that he deserves the treat. When the habit gets out of hand and his finances continually dwindle, he begins to resort to any means necessary to acquire his drug of choice. It's a downward spiral that generally gets out of hand and society pays for it. It is no surprise that the majority of those considered poor, or of the lower social class, align themselves with the Democratic Party, if any at all. Afterall, the Democrats pride themselves on appealing to and fighting for the working class, or the working poor. They seek to provide social safety nets to these citizens- ways to protect them when they find themselves out of work or out of money. Much debate has centered around the effectiveness of these programs and whether they actually help the poor or merely provide a crutch. Today at work (I work in a grocery store (hardly a well-paying job, I might add)), a man in his 40s, I would guess, came through my line buying groceries with food stamps. Before I finished ringing him up, my manager came over and confronted the man- apparently he had tried to steal 4 packs of cigarettes. Shoplifting isn't a crime based in malice, but generally an act of desparation (unless you're a teenager seeking some excitement or trying to be cool). Chances are, this man has worked low-paying jobs requiring physical labor his entire life and this has caused his desparation. So there's the explanation- working menial jobs leads to feeling desparate leads to criminal behavior, in extreme cases- but what is the [i]reason[/i] for this? You don't have to be a genius to see that participating in this line of behavior is harmful to you, I don't think. So why is it that so many become desparate enough to steal or commit other crimes to attain their desired escape? I am amazed at how so many people seem so complacent to go along with what they are surrounded by without questioning anything. A child reared in a home where Christianity is practiced will most likely grow up continuing to worship the Christian God, whereas if he was born to Buddhist parents, he would be more likely to practice Buddhism. A child reared in a home where drugs are abused more often than not will grow up to abuse drugs himself. With religion, it is more understandable that the child will retain his parents' beliefs, as they are more likely to be seen as beneficial to the person. But a child surrounded by drug addicts and/or alcoholics will likely see the dangers associated with these acts. Yet many seem to indulge in similar behaviors themselves. Is it genetic, is it simply due to loyalty, is it a lack of will that causes this complacency? Or is it a result of familial socialization- the child brought up in a home where drugs are often used learns this behavior? perhaps it is due to all of these factors, but there must be something more. The problem, as I see it, lies in neglect of responsibility. A person who has to choose between paying his rent or indulging in some escapist behavior either acts responsibly or irresponsibly, it's as simple as that. The person who decides that cigarettes are as much a necessity as bread is makes that choice, and must be responsible for his choices. This is why the debate over welfare programs is waged- does it really help people to give them handouts when they negate their responsibilities? Perhaps that is a bit harsh, as it is not necessarily a lack of responsibility that results in a person being poor. Not all who seek the benefits of the welfare system are irresponsible and not all indulge in unnecessary or illegal behaviors. But many do. And society pays. |
| 12 Comments |
| Challenge (and response) to the theory of evolutionary morality |
| 03.02.04 (12:13 am) [edit] |
|
[i]If we are constantly evolving into superior moral beings, why are we aborting babies left and right and calling it 'moral'? Why are we still murdering? Why are we still hurting others? Why is there divorce? Why don't we all hold hands and love each other? Why would it be in anyone's self-interest to do something immoral? Hmm? You see, you operate from a flawed view, that man is inherently rational, and for you that means, 'good'. With evolution, it's all gravy as time goes on. But with the advent of moral relativism, with modernism, morals don't mean anything anymore, right? They are intechangeable, they are equal. We should be advancing, not regressing. I would love some proof of the theory of evolutionary morality. Otherwise, faith in the theory is no different than faith in my God.[/i] Evolving into superior moral beings in large part requires simply acquiring the knowledge to provide for a greater capacity to distinguish between right and wrong. We are not perfect beings now and quite likely never will be. Some members of any species lack the more advanced traits of others- this could be true for some humans in terms of morality. Those who murder and hurt others clearly do not have as high a sense of right and wrong as those who see that these acts are wrong and harmful. Also, it is quite possible to understand that an action is wrong but still do it. As for abortion, many who support abortion rights do not consider it moral, but think that the decision should not be forced upon anyone. It's a bit erroneous to say that we allow abortion and call it moral. Divorce is only immoral if you consider marriage to be a sacred bond, or if you consider breaking the vows to be a form of lying. That's a difficult call to make as it depends on your religious views as well as your views on marriage itself. I'd say most people get divorced to promote the possibility of love (not that I'm condoning divorce; it's more a disdain for marriage). It is not in anyone's self-interest to do anything immoral, and that is precisely the point of the theory of evolutionary morality. We are selfish beings who seek the best means of survival. Acting in ways that are immoral is the same as acting in ways that are detrimental to our survival, thus, as we evolve, we seek ways to avoid immoral acts- the greatest way being the ability to determine what is wrong and what is right. Man is inherently rational. Not all have the same capabilities of rationality, and neither is the same rationale implemented by all. In your view, I suppose we are all helpless unless we have some superior being guide us poor imbeciles into realizing what is right and wrong. I think it makes better sense (and is more comforting) to consider our morality not as coming from some God, but from ourselves and our basic need for survival. I am really getting tired of saying that moral relativism doesn't make morality meaningless. If it did, there would be no point to moral relativism itself. As individuals with different intellects, ideas, views, values, and different understandings of things, we each determine our own moral code. These individual moral codes, or the morality of an entire culture, often differ with the moral codes of other individuals or other cultures. Thus, it is egocentric and narrow-sighted to claim that one person's or one culture's morality must be the code for all humanity. That does not mean that morality is meaningless, just that one person or group's moral standards cannot be applied to all. Morality is intangible and difficult to measure or test, just as God is. It would be just as odd to say that morality exists as it is to say God exists. However, morality is a sense of knowledge, God is not- He is supposedly a being. Comparing a theory of a system of knowledge and a theory of the existence of a being is rather silly. The only proof I can give you (I'm no scientist) is as I've stated in my explanation of the theory. It only makes sense that we have developed a sense of right and wrong in order to survive. Whether our morality itself has evolved, I couldn't tell ya. The basic premise, however, is not that our moral standards have advanced, but that the cause of morality is rooted in our capacity for survival. |
| 3 Comments |
