Democrats versus Republicans

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by craigimass

You (or some others) think that you should not be obedient to yourself, but to some perceived or imagined God who sits somewhere outside of yourself and tells you what to do.

You said that you sometimes meditate and that the answers (or direction) just pop into your head and then you know what to do - same thing for most people who pray, you just use different words to describe it. Christians for example call that "contemplative prayer" and believe they should seek silence and open up their mind to possibility so that they can find God's will for them. How that is any different than what you call meditation I can't imagine.

I don't think that most adult/thinking people who have an understanding of God think of God as a wise old man with a beard floating around on a cloud shouting answers down with a megaphone, so I don't think it is fair to dismiss people by suggesting it. There are plenty of us out here who see evolution as one of God's tools, for example, and see God's will in the rain, not much different than you I suspect.

[craigimass]

That's why I mentioned the Quakers, who do what you say (meditate and think).

BUT, we cannot dismiss a vast number of Americans who think that there is a Big Boss and that orders emanate from there. We can't dismiss GW pooh-poohing advice from his own dad to listen to a "higher father" , and then a number of people voting for him because they truly beleived that GW had that connection with the supernatural mystic.

But you are correct in that sense.....contemplative religious factions such as Buddhism, Quakers and many more assume the innate intelligence of the individual. God is therefore defined as this well that you can tap into - and the FREE WILL which allows you to do so.

Personally, I don't use the word "Obedient" to describe that....or would not use it if I wanted my views to spread. I would use something like "true to my inner nature".

And back to the Buckley Quote - once again it is divisive in another way. Sure, we don't always run our lives by what was voted on at the ballot box today or yesterday. BUT the laws and principles of the USA, Britain and many other enlightened civil societies DO provide a framework in an attempt to get it right. Now that law may have been passed yesterday or it may have been put into force 100 years ago in a constitutional amendment. Either way, we SHOULD live our lives in part by the results of the ballot box.

For Buckley to say he NEVER lives by laws other than God and his Ancestors would put us back in tribal days......quickly, if people listened.

I'll have to come up with a sig that more accurately reflects the world as it is.

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by craigimass

BUT, we cannot dismiss a vast number of Americans who think that there is a Big Boss and that orders emanate from there.

I think that there are a lot of people out there who like to put religion into a box of their own making and then dismiss it - example would be Bill Mayer who does everything he can to make religious people seem as absurd and trivial as he possibly can, and the way he does that is by carefully choosing who he wants to represent "religion", and then using lots of editing to get the product he wants. It is a lot like Republicans trying to say that Barney Frank is typical of Democrats and their views - yes, Barney Frank does represent a certain segment of the Democratic party, but I wouldn't say he speaks for most of the Democrats I have met, there are plenty of Democrats who think the man is just plain silly.

But you are correct in that sense.....contemplative religious factions such as Buddhism, Quakers and many more assume the innate intelligence of the individual. God is therefore defined as this well that you can tap into - and the FREE WILL which allows you to do so.

Personally, I don't use the word "Obedient" to describe that....or would not use it if I wanted my views to spread. I would use something like "true to my inner nature".

I don't mind the word obedient, or as the Muslim's say "Islam" (meaning "surrender"), to me those words are just trying to communicate to the listener that you have to open your heart and listen to what enters into it, and then act on it. I don't see people as being separated from the world in the same way that many individualists do, to me the idea of separation is like an ant pretending it is in control of its own actions because it pulls a grasshopper back to the anthill, as if no other ant had ever thought of it before. People are like that to, they often think they are unique because they build an unusual house, or invent a new device, or carve tattoo's in their arm, when really those speak to the most mundane of human intentions. Increasing one's attractiveness, having shelter, and using your brain to create something new, that's pretty basic human being stuff, and most human beings do those things, yet individualists point to things like that as undeniable proof that human beings have free will.

And back to the Buckley Quote - once again it is divisive in another way. Sure, we don't always run our lives by what was voted on at the ballot box today or yesterday. BUT the laws and principles of the USA, Britain and many other enlightened civil societies DO provide a framework in an attempt to get it right. Now that law may have been passed yesterday or it may have been put into force 100 years ago in a constitutional amendment. Either way, we SHOULD live our lives in part by the results of the ballot box.

For Buckley to say he NEVER lives by laws other than God and his Ancestors would put us back in tribal days......quickly, if people listened.

I'll have to come up with a sig that more accurately reflects the world as it is.

I don't think it would put us back in tribal days, as I said in the post I referenced earlier, I think natural law has its place. There is a law that is greater than human law, and it arises out of the human condition in predictable ways, that's why it has been rediscovered over and over through history by people from different cultures and geographic locations. Somehow when it gets right down to it, people know what is right and wrong, and societies and cultures may invent some interesting twists on the basic theme, but in the end there is a basic law that is profound and important enough to be discovered, and not simply invented. That law and justice has things like not stealing from other people, not killing other people, not messing with another man's woman, not causing other people to starve to death, etc, at its core, again, basic human being stuff. People might pass laws that affirm or deny those basic rights, but it is the people's wisdom in passing the law that becomes a matter of debate, not the natural laws they attempt to support or diminish.

Said another way - there is right and wrong in the world and I don't think most people need Congress to tell them what it is.

[PBzeer]

You seem to have this image craig, that belief in a higher power, somehow means a surrender of one's free will. And while there are, no doubt, some who do, the overwhelming majority do not. Most see the teachings of their religion as a guide to their life. Just because I chart a course, based on my learning of tides, winds, and currents, there are many variables that may cause me to alter that course, or struggle to maintain it. Whatever course I follow though, will be the one which best incorporates what I have learned, and what I have to deal with.

There is no suspension of logic nor reason necessary. Neither does one need to repudiate the truisms of science. There is no conflict, except to those who are dismissive of religion. Sure, there are extremists, but they exist outside of religion as well as within it. To characterize the many by the behavior of the few exhibits neither logic nor reason.

[PBzeer]

Just finished one one of my monthly pleasures, reading the new Camille Paglia column. Though I disagree with her on many things, she is one of the few people that speak without spin.
Bow-ow-ow: Obama's painful missteps | Salon

[craigimass]

I guess it is one of those things....

Those that do, do.
Those than don't - teach.
Those that can't teach- write.....

Of course, that is my own summation. I do get paid to write, but then again I teach also and try to do as much as possible.

I think we could add a 4th line.
Those that can't write - listen to talking heads.

As to religion, I have no problem with people using a guideline, ruler or tool they find useful. But back to the little point I was making about that Buckley quote - it doesn't seem to say that. It seems to "diss" the laws of the land for obedience to some God. As with any words, there are lots of ways to read them....but that is the meaning I gleam. "Act not from the laws of man or my own conscience, but be obedient to God and my Ancestors" or something like that...seems like a decent translation.

[PBzeer]

What a surprise. I wasn't aware that a belief in a higher power required a lack of conscience. Evidently, I didn't get that memo.

For one so enamored of nuance, you certainly take everything you disagree with in black and white.

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by craigimass

As to religion, I have no problem with people using a guideline, ruler or tool they find useful. But back to the little point I was making about that Buckley quote - it doesn't seem to say that. It seems to "diss" the laws of the land for obedience to some God. As with any words, there are lots of ways to read them....but that is the meaning I gleam. "Act not from the laws of man or my own conscience, but be obedient to God and my Ancestors" or something like that...seems like a decent translation.

From Sway's sig - "I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth." Wm. F. Buckley, Jr.

To me the quote just says that Buckley would try to do the right thing regardless of what laws men might pass to the contrary, that's how I read it. He does seem to be suggesting that man's law is fickle by using the word "yesterday".

[sailaway21]

You guys are wasting your time with the field hockey teacher from Brookline here. he cannot be bothered to pick up the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution and actually read them for himself. If he has, he obviously lacks the cognitive ability to understand them.

He's sorely vexed that a man would give his allegiance to his God over his country. As such, he finds himself diametrically opposed to the Founders of this nation. He'll hem and haw but he really has no answer for the below words from the Declaration. At heart, he's a natural little government bureaucrat, a functionary convinced of the good that government does, incapable of seeing the good his neighbor does absent compulsion. Field hockey is a rough sport; it's entirely possible there was a violent glandular collision between a young female breast and the lighter than air bag of gas atop Craig's neck.

Even money says he cannot explain these words in an manner satisfactory to the inquisitiveness and intellectual rigor of the average eighth grader.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Just in the interest of scientific objectivity I ran those thoughts by an available sixth grader and she had no trouble in explaining to me that they meant that our right's are god-given and that we have them regardless of what country we live in or what the government says. The coup de grace was administered when she informed me that they are unalienable because they predate government, all government. The little dear was perplexed when I told her to stay out of Philadelphia. (g)

[craigimass]

I know this is gonna be tough, but perhaps you should do a little reading about that text you mention:
Jefferson's Original Declaration of Independence Did Not Use the Word "Creator"

CONCLUSION

To sum what is known:

* The original version Jefferson wrote did not contain the word Creator.
* A copy that John Adams wrote in his own hand did not contain the word creator
* At some point after Jefferson wrote the original draft and before it was submitted to Congress it was changed to the wording with regards to creator that we know today

Words can be quite powerful. But make no mistake about it. The founders did not credit the Christian God or any such thing as our creator. In fact, we could say they claimed YOUR PARENTS were your creator!

As the expert says, and you prove:
"That which seemed of little importance to those who authored and or debated that document has taken on a huge life of its own since then--while that which they felt was important has been forgotten."

I fear you too have lost the meaning and clung to a word (Creator) which you translate as God. I can assure you that, had the founders know what you were going to twist, they would have even left out that word - creator.

I guess Creator of man can apply to everything from the first cell to your parents to a pair of Africans, from who we all sprung.

To me and to many others, the meaning is pretty clear. It is saying that Jeffersons first draft is the intention:
"We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and unalienables, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness; . .