ETHICS AND MORALITY. PERSONAL ETHICS VS INSTITUTIONAL ETHICS, OR FINDING GOD VS FORCING GOD. PT 1.

Why is it that people with certain Moral Beliefs, automatically feel it is their mission to see that others also adopt this same ETHICAL SYSTEM?

What is even more Disturbing, is their desire to see it instituted into Law, either by Statute or Judicial Decree.  Unfortunately, the Lack of Freedom to Choose never seems to bother them, unless it inhibits their own ability to make Individual Decisions.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION, AS A RIGHT, INCLUDES THE ABILITY TO OBEY OR DISOBEY ANY FORM OF RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE.  IT IS NOT A MATTER OF SELECTING WHICH FORMS OF FAITH CAN BE LEGALIZED, AND ADJUSTING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM TO CONFORM.  NONE OF THEM ARE TO BE PART OF ANY CODE OF LAW, BECAUSE THE CONCEPT OF 'FREEDOM OF RELIGION' WOULD BE MEANINGLESS. 

A Response to this is could be something like : "The Word of God is Absolute, we must Convert or Convince others that their only hope for Salvation is accepting 

Scripture, and Submitting to Gods Will."

This type of Response makes the following Assumptions;

-  DEFINING "GOD" IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY, AND MUST BE ACCEPTED.

-  That Their DEFINITION OF GOD IS THE CORRECT ONE.

-  THAT FAITH ALONE IS REQUIRED AND NECESSARY.  NO LOGICAL PROOFS, OR SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY IS NEEDED TO "KNOW THE TRUTH."

-  That GOD HAS REVEALED INSTRUCTIONS FOR A MORAL LIFE, THROUGH INTERPRETATIONS OF SPECIFIC TEXTS, WHICH MUST BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE AND INFALLIBLE.

-  "SALVATION" IS A DESIRABLE GOAL , THAT CAN ONLY BE ACHIEVED BY OBEYING THESE INSTRUCTIONS.

Now there is nothing UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR ILLEGAL about believing any of the above.  A FREE SOCIETY allows each of us to find answers on our own, and being able to share our BELIEFS OR FAITH with others. 

HOWEVER, THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONVERTING OR CONVINCING SOMEONE TO ACT OR BELIEVE CERTAIN RELIGIOUS DEFINITIONS OR ABSOLUTES VOLUNTARILY, AND FORCING THEM TO THROUGH THREATS OF CRIMINAL OR CIVIL SANCTIONS INSTITUTED INTO LAW.

LOOK FOR PT 2 IN A FUTURE POST.  

WHAT A SHAME. PUTTING A FACE ON THE TRUE ENEMIES OF CHANGE.

Why is it that any time a CONTROVERSIAL INDIVIDUAL RUNS FOR OFFICE, THE MEDIA ADOPTS THE ATTITUDE THAT; "THIS IS A SIGN OF THE TIMES, A NEW MOVEMENT BECAUSE OF DISSATISFACTION WITH POLITICS AS USUAL." THIS DECLARATION IS SAID TO MIRROR THE ATTITUDE OF DISSATISFIED VOTERS, WHO ARE TIRED OF TRADITIONAL POLITICIANS RUNNING THE GOVERNMENT.

Sorry, but this is simply not True. If it was, the Same "Old, Rich and Powerful Politicians" would not be Re- Elected Time and Time Again.  Even the BARACK OBAMA PRESIDENCY, WHICH HAS SEEN SIGNIFICANT BENEFICIAL CHANGES TO THE LIVES OF MANY AMERICANS, (AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, LEGALIZATION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, MANY STATES RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE, ADOPTING POLICIES THAT ARE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE FINDINGS OF CLIMATE SCIENCE etc. ), HAS HAD TO DEAL WITH THE SAME ATTITUDES, PREJUDICES, AND SELF-CENTERED MINDSETS THAT HAS HINDERED SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHANGE FOR DECADES.  What is really Absurd, is that those who oppose such changes, and want to maintain the Status Quo, ARE THOSE SCREAMING THE LOUDEST ABOUT OUR BROKEN POLITICAL SYSTEM.

I understand that some of the News Media no longer CARES FOR INTELLECTUAL DISCOURSE, AND WOULD RATHER WALLOW IN THE CESSPOOL CREATED BY REALITY T.V., CELEBRITY WORSHIP, AND GOSSIP COLUMNISTS MASQUERADING AS NEWS REPORTERS AND ANALYSTS. OFTEN TIMES, THIS RESULTS IN CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE BROADCAST MEDIA TROTTING OUT TIME WORN CLICHES LIKE, "THE VOTERS ARE TIRED OF THE SAME OLD BACK ROOM POLITICS", IN AN ATTEMPT TO SHIFT ATTENTION AWAY FROM FINDING REAL ANSWERS, TO REAL PROBLEMS.

In Addition, Efforts to Confront Past Unresolved Issues, (ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, THE CONFLICTS IN IRAN AND IRAQ, AND CREATING TREATIES TO PREVENT THE INCREASE IN NUCLEAR WEAPONRY AMONG ALL NATIONS,etc.), HAS RESULTED IN SYSTEMATIC ATTEMPTS BY THE OPPOSITION TO SABOTAGE OR PREVENT ANY PROGRESS THAT COULD YIELD POSITIVE RESULTS.

THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IS:

THOSE WHO HAVE OPPOSED MOST, IF NOT ALL POLICIES CHANGES PROPOSED BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION , ARE LED BY POLITICAL LEADERSHIP THAT HAS BEEN ENTRENCHED FOR YEARS. THE MAIN REASON FOR SUCH OPPOSITION SEEMS TO BE A DESIRE TO PREVENT ANY SUCCESS THAT COULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, AND STOPPING PERMANENT CHANGES IN DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN POLICY THAT WOULD NO LONGER FAVOR A PRIVILEGED FEW. 

Date-  6/2/2016.

LOGIC. THE NEED TO EDUCATE, AND MAKE IT THE ENEMY OF IRRATIONAL, SELF-CENTERED, AND PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT. PT 2.

When we Discuss Educating Young People on the Practical Uses of LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING IN EVERYDAY LIFE, THE POLITICAL SYSTEM IS AN AREA OF SPECIAL IMPORTANCE.  

ENCOMPASSING CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LAW, THE ECONOMY, AND OTHER PARTS OF DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN POLICY, ELECTING AND SUPPORTING THE MOST COMPETENT, HONEST, AND CAPABLE INDIVIDUALS IS A GOAL THAT EVERY CITIZEN SHOULD FEEL IS A RESPONSIBILITY, ONE THAT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN LIGHTLY.

In a free and open open society, POLITICIANS CAN GIVE AN OPINION ON JUST ABOUT ANY SUBJECT, USUALLY WITH LITTLE FEAR OF PUNISHMENT. However, that does not mean they know what they are Talking About, or even care, as long as there are Those who are willing to close Their Minds, and Accept What is being said at Face Value.

THIS IS MANIFESTED BY THE POLITICIAN WHO IS ADEPT AT DELIVERING A SPEECH THAT CAN LAST FOR HOWEVER LONG THEY NEED IT TO, USING WORDS AND PHRASES THAT MAY SOUND INTELLECTUAL AND INSIGHTFUL, BUT LACK ANY REAL SUBSTANCE OR MEANING.  THE BODY OF THE SPEECH IS JUST EMPTY RHETORIC, SPOKEN BY SOMEONE WHO KNOWS OR CARES LITTLE FOR THE FACTS, OR ADDRESSING REAL ISSUES WITH KNOWLEDGE AND COMPETENCE.

SO HOW CAN WE INSTRUCT YOUNG LOGICIANS IN IDENTIFYING THOSE POLITICIANS WHO TALK A LOT, BUT SAY LITTLE THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED OF ANY VALUE?

IT IS TO TEACH THEM THAT NOT ALL POLITICAL SPEECH IS OF EQUAL WORTH, AND HOW TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VALUABLE AND VALUELESS.  TO DO THIS, WE SHOULD POINT OUT THERE ARE TWO MAIN FORMS OF POLITICAL SPEECH THAT ARE USED TO SWAY VOTERS, BUT USE DECEPTION, PREJUDICE, AND A SELF-CENTERED MINDSET TO IGNORE AND AVOID PROVIDING REAL ANSWERS THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY WORK TO THE BENEFIT OF ALL AMERICANS.

THEY ARE...

-  ...THE UNSUPPORTED CONCLUSION/BASELESS ASSERTION.

                               AND

-  ...THE VAGUE/UNDEFINED MESSAGE.

LOOK FOR PART 3.

Date- 1/24/2016.

ETHICS AND MORALITY. JUST ANOTHER EXCUSE. PT 1.

As another Election Cycle approaches, we are again 

being Subjected to Daily Analysis about what the Average 

Voter is Thinking and Looking for in a Candidate.

In Reality, They seem to be Nothing More than Sound Bites,

with the Media Trying to Create Controversy by finding 

Perspective Voters who are;

-  Looking for Reasons to Justify Their Lack of Knowledge.

-  Desperately trying to Blame any Problems They Have, Socially

or Economically, on other groups.

-  To Complain about how Recent Political Activity That May Have

Benefited others, is Unfair or Unjust because it didn't produce 

Immediate Positive Affects on Their Lives, or Disrupted a World View 

that Confronted Personal Prejudices, Irrational Judgments, or Past

Injustices.

-  So Self- Centered that even Trying to Explain to Them the Long Term

Goals of New Policies falls on Deaf Ears.

It almost seems like that Those Interviewed consider any Action or Stand 

Taken by an Elected Official IMMORAL, IF THEY DO NOT PERCEIVE AN 

IMMEDIATE POSITIVE IMPACT IN THEIR OWN LIVES, EVEN IF THERE 

IS NO REASONABLE DETRIMENT TO THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE.

What is even Worse, is the Memory Lapse that occurs when it is pointed 

out that other Policy Changes have Benefited Those who are now Criticizing

a Specific Issue.

So, HOW MUCH EMPHASIS SHOULD WE PLACE ON OVER THE AIR 

OPINIONS GIVEN BY THE "VOTING PUBLIC," WHICH ARE OFFERED 

BY DIFFERENT MEDIA OUTLETS?

SEE PART 2.

Date-  7/31/2015.