And although, I do maintain my own 'mystic' affiliations, they belong to the realm of personal spirituality and not human interactions. I never use them in defense of a philosophical position and likewise get frustrated when dismissed in that regard, by others. But, I had to learn that for myself. So where is the balance? ... between being wrong and becoming right? I rarely engage a debate short of the facts; so I think. But, we are all taught a lesson or two from time to time (Radiometers come to mind). It is often a good thing, is it not?. Granted, it is not when the teacher is a Leftist driving a false premise through a conjectural wall.
This is an issue I consider everytime I post (especially among you talented gentlemen and women) or engage an Editorial Opinion via a submitted rebuttle.
Atos
Over the years I have come to recognize more and more the damage done because of the altruistic ethic of precisely this situation, which is the reason for my remarks. A perfect example was the Gov. of Alabama (I think) that wanted to raise taxes because, he said, JC said we had a duty to take care of the poor. I could dig around the web and find a dozen religious leaders in the last week or so that advocated what is basically socialism, on a religious basis. I remember once the Catholic Bishops in NY objecting to a decrease in welfare payments because it might lead to more abortions. That it had precisely the opposite effect never fazed them.
Free enterprise as it truly should be, doesn't exist in this country, precisely because of the aforementioned altruist ethic. So while it seems they are advocating a good thing, that same belief system undermines what they think they are advocating.
I consider free enterprise to be a very good thing; but it works for all religions that I know of, and is entirely justifiable on economic principles, regardless of one's religion (or the lack thereof).
Except when the religion precludes it. For example, do you know why the Muslim world is so poor, can't rise out of its poverty? One main reason, I recently learned, is that the Koran forbids lending money for usury, at any percentage. Period. So they can't borrow money to build things like factories and such. And, it also keeps wealth in the hands of those who happen to have it, because they can't lend it.
Indeed, every economic system, from slavery to feudalism to communism (the system originally practiced by the Mayflower passengers), has been "justified" by the then-prevailing religious regime. Religious arguments in support of economic systems are inherently fallacious.
These two sentences go very well together. If they are true, then the same must be said about religious arguments in support of political systems. They have been used to justify every form of political system, and therefore must be equally fallacious.
And this, I think, is the real issue of what is happening in this country today. In light of the slow demise of religion there has been a meager attempt to justify Individual Rights on a rational basis, as Rand did so well. Thus what we really have is a battle between the secular altruists and the religious altruists. If the argument remains that there are no Individual Rights unless they are “God Given” then we are doomed.
The argument is no longer persuasive because it does contain these fallacies. The choice of freedom no longer actually exists precisely because of that. What, you say? I’m free. Do you know you pay more in taxes than a feudal serf had to? To a great degree this country is living in a dream of what it was 200 years ago and has long since morphed into something else.
Those who mix the two -- merely because they are emotionally attached to both -- are bound to confuse, and sometimes even repel, those who (correctly) find the religious argument unpersuasive in the field of economics.
And that mixing makes the altruistic ethic possible and justified, and results in that very slavery. We are 5/12 slaves. It takes 5 months of labor to pay off your tax burden. That is what “tax freedom day” really means. And that mixing also confuses other issues. For example.
All the hoopla about the Pledge of Allegiance. The whole focus is about the words, Under God. Yet this isn’t the real danger in the Pledge, you could leave that in and it wouldn’t bother me. The Pledge was written by Socialist Minister Francis Bellamy as a lauding of centralized government power.
The whole concept of Pledging "Allegiance" is strictly outside the 'social contract' that the Constitution was intended to be. It was a voluntary association based upon mutual interest, not a binding domination by a central government.
The key word here is ’indivisible’ which was strictly against the ’Original Intent’ of the Founding Fathers, which is always the issue raised about Under God. The Founders always intended there to be a right of secession on the part of any state. So the current argument is a Red Herring and the Pledge should be thrown out for other reasons. This is never considered or discussed. The real issue is Federal Government power which has grown far beyond anything anyone intended. And all these other issues are just distractions.
This is the practical result of "right principles" for wrong reasons. Contradictions always have this result somewhere along the line.