TigersEye
Since Aug 10, 2000
|
|
TigersEye
Since Aug 10, 2000
| |||||
|
| ||||||
Kyabje Jigdrel Yeshe Dorje Dudjom Rinpoche
Eightfold path.The first point is called right view -- the right way to view the world. Wrong view occurs when we impose our expectations onto things; expectations about how we hope things will be, or about how we are afraid things might be. Right view occurs when we see things simply, as they are. It is an open and accommodating attitude. We abandon hope and fear and take joy in a simple straight-forward approach to life.
to tpaine: He (Judge Roy Moore) was 'respecting an establishment' of the Judeo-christian religion, [the ten commandments], favoring them over the principles of other religions..(my reply:) That is not how the 1st Amendment reads. Reading skills are important in the understanding of the written works of men. Ignoring context and punctuation can mean the difference between understanding and folly. Here is the entire Amendment with the 'establishment clause' in bold.
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.You see, the 'establishment clause' begins with the word 'Congress' and ends at the comma after 'religion.' That is because it is a complete thought which could stand as a sentence on its own. It does not and was not intended to have meaning when severed into one or two word excerpts as that would render it totally meaningless having infinite possible interpretations. If that were the case we could take 'Congress shall make' all by itself and justify the notion that whatever is to be made is to be made by Congress whether that was law or hatchets or computer software. The English language has a definite structure, particularly in the written form, that makes it possible to convey definite meanings. Albeit only to those who have taken the care to learn the rules governing its structure. Now then, the 'establishment clause' is not the only intention expressed concerning religion so it is followed with a second thought, the 'free exercise' clause, and ends with a semi-colon. Following that, in similar form, are the other four clauses which comprise the other two types of activity addressed by the 1st Amendment, communication and cooperation by the people, which concern (respect) freedom of expression. That gives us three areas of activity, comprised of two clauses each, that the 1st Amendment protects for the people from the intrusion of the government. Religion, communication and cooperation. This trilogy of activities was put together in one Amendment because of the vital interconnection they share with each other in maintaining, defining and defending the liberty and freedom of the individual (and thereby all men). So what we have in the first clause is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, " not 'respecting an establishment' as a stand alone phrase. 'Respecting' is not about 'reverance to' which is one synonym for it but rather 'consideration of' and 'establishment' is not supposed to be taken in the same vein as one thinks of a local pub, ie "let's go down to the local establishment and put back a couple of pints", which is the connotation you're trying to give the word. 'An establishment' means both 'to create' and 'is created.' One need only read the clause through, first with the idea that government has in mind creating a religion (to create) and then with the thought that government has in mind regulating an existing religion (is created) and it is easy to see that 'an establishment of religion' can be read as clear and meaningful in both contexts. And so it was meant to be. But the second half of the clause is just that; half of a clause which is half of a thought. The whole clause is very specific as to the action prohibited to the government, which after all is what all eight of the first eight Amendments are about, prohibiting particular actions of government. It says "Congress shall make no law ..." and then it spells out equally clearly what Congress shall not make laws about. Those respecting religion, communication and cooperation in the specific manner proscribed. Judge Roy Moore is not Congress. Judge Moore made no law. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals violated the 'free _expression' clause and the 'free speech' clause of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. Case closed. 155 posted on 01/30/2004 7:19:47 PM EST by TigersEye (Regime change in the courts. Impeach activist judges!)
An Old Cherokee describes an experience going on inside himself.... It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil - he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego. The other is good - he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. This same fight is going on inside you - and inside every other person, too." The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?" The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."
The fanatic has an elitist view of himself. He holds a firm belief that he is in some way special and has something that others, not like him, do not. Because of this basic self-view any disagreement with the elitist or any resistance to their actions causes anger. This "supreme" view of himself is an excuse for justifying his anger and thus justifying any act from deception to murder against those who disagree with or refuse to comply with him. He is comfortable with hatred, revenge, lying or any gross deception in defense of his special "superior" position acted out against those (the "others") who do resist him or refuse to validate his view(s).It is impossible to reason or negotiate with someone who believes that they are morally and/or ethically superior to everyone else. Anything and everything you do to accommodate their "concerns" (demands), short of complete capitulation, will be discounted due to your "obvious" inherent inferiority. Any resistance to this, anything other than complete submission, actually becomes self-evident proof of their superiority and your inferiority. The elitist's mindset presupposes the rationale of rightness and righteousness as inherent only to themselves by virtue only of this self-superior self-image and not at all as a measure of the quality of their actions or their resulting consequences.
That mindset becomes the entire basis of their world-view. They may rest it on an ideology or philosophy that they choose to use as support or camoflage for it but the doctrine itself may or may not, loosely or strictly, support their view. It doesn't really need to as that is of secondary or even tertiary importance. The doctrine has relevance only as a tool. An indoctrinated fanatic may be completely unaware of this yet still be very skilled in its method. "I'm right you're wrong and this is where it says so" goes his thinking. The founders and leaders of fanatic movements know full well that the doctrine is nothing but a smokescreen. They're still right and you're still wrong but it "says so" in their minds only. When it gets down to brass tacks they "don't need no steenking doctrine" to support or hide their superior self-view.
Of course the opposite is true for the non-elites in the fanatic's mindset. You can never be right if you're not one of the "righteous." That is why a fanatic is so dangerous. Any and all evil acts can be justified on the basis of any disassociation whatsoever with the personal views and goals of the fanatic. With his identity. The intent and motivations of an outsider are irrelevant no matter how positive they are. Even the results of an outsider's actions are irrelevant no matter how accommodating or constructive or beneficial they are to the fanatic elitist. The outsider is always wrong because he won't submit to the fanatic's view.
The world is full of fanatics of many varieties and they can base their superior self-view on any pretext that works for them. Some belong to large groups of like-minded fanatics, some belong to a group that is not in itself fanatical but lends itself to the their needs and some are individuals under the delusion that they alone are special.
In today's world the United States in particular and western civilization in general are under a concerted assault from two separate groups of fanatic elitists. Fundamentalist Muslims and leftists. The Islamo-nazis and the Marxists. Both leftists and Islamo-fascists hold a firm belief that they are special and have something that "rednecks" and "infidels" don't have. For the leftists it is supposedly "superior intellect" and "social sophistication" that they possess and for the Islamo-nazis it's a "call from Allah," a "holy annointing."
Both groups are manifestations of a mass psychological disorder of fanatic elitism. Both are extremely unstable and are neither founded upon nor affected by sound logic or reason. Convinced of their own inherent superiority both groups will press their respective agendas as far as they can without regard for the consequences to themselves or to others. As with any fanatic the blame for all of their actions will logically fall on the shoulders of the "others," the outsiders. Negative consequences of their actions simply become another tool for self-vindication in the form of propaganda turned back on the outsider as "proof" of his inferiority.
The mindset of the fanatic elitist is the same as that of a rabid dog. The mindset of "us-and-them" on an inviolable scale. Nothing else has a valid existence for them if it doesn't submit completely to their view. Anyone and anything that doesn't submit is "total enemy." The outlook of neither the rabid dog nor the fanatic elitist can be affected by outside influence. The dog's mind is controlled by the fevered ravages of a virus; the fanatic's mind is controlled by a self-chosen paradigm that holds anything contradictory to their own superiority as automatically self-negated and both the dog and the fanatic view that as a threat that must be destroyed.
For the fanatic elitist change can only occur from within and that means a change in their most basic self-view, the view that they are special and unique in a superior and absolute way. A view that all reasonable people must either fully reject or completely submit to. Those are the only choices the fanatic leaves to others.
"The First Noble Truth is not a dismal metaphysical statement saying that everything is suffering. Notice that there is a difference between a metaphysical doctrine in which you are making a statement about The Absolute and a Noble Truth which is a reflection. A Noble Truth is a truth to reflect upon; it is not an absolute; it is not The Absolute. This is where Western people get very confused because they interpret this Noble Truth as a kind of metaphysical truth of Buddhism - but it was never meant to be that.You can see that the First Noble Truth is not an absolute statement because of the Fourth Noble Truth, which is the way of non-suffering. You cannot have absolute suffering and then have a way out of it, can you? That doesn’t make sense. Yet some people will pick up on the First Noble Truth and say that the Buddha taught that everything is suffering.
*The Pali word, dukkha, means "incapable of satisfying" or "not able to bear or withstand anything": always changing, incapable of truly fulfilling us or making us happy. The sensual world is like that, a vibration in nature. It would, in fact, be terrible if we did find satisfaction in the sensory world because then we wouldn’t search beyond it; we’d just be bound to it. However, as we awaken to this dukkha, we begin to find the way out so that we are no longer constantly trapped in sensory consciousness."
The Four Noble Truths - teachings by Ajahn Sumedho
** Notes in parenthesis are my own.