Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
With all this American Political talk...
A2597
Fanboy
in Zocalo v2.0
May I provide my roughly formulated opinion on why it doesn't matter who holds the house and senate, because we're still going to continue to see a moral and thereby cultural decline in our Nation.
Of the three unalienable rights listed in the Declaration of Independence, the pursuit of happiness is perhaps the best known.
This statement is often looked at in its face value only, but has a much deeper connotation than we normally give it credit. On one hand, it can be used to surmise all that is wrong with this nation, and on the other, everything that is right.
The term “the pursuit of happiness” was coined by Samuel Johnson in his book “Rasselas” in 1759. In this fiction, we follow Rasselas, the son of the king of Abissinia (Modern Day Ethiopia), as he travels to seek adventure, and along the course of his journey, comes to the conclusion that there is not easy path to happiness.
This was certainly true for our forefathers, 8 years of war with the British Empire to establish our independence was not easy, and had resulted in much death, pain, and suffering. But what is the pursuit of happiness in this instance, why is this statement in our constitution, and why did we come to America in the first place?
The first Pilgrims came to America around 1620 for five main reasons, but perhaps the greatest was for the freedom of worship, freedom from religious persecution. This coincides with the protestant reformation, which split Europe between the Catholics and Protestants. For those that do not know, as the very name implies, the protestant reformation was a protest against certain teachings of the Catholic Church. So, to escape the persecution of the Catholic Church, they came to America, where they could worship God freely.
Moving forward 100 years to our founding fathers, those beliefs carried on, and this nation was founded on those same principals. This can be seen even clearer how less than 40 years after the declaration of independence was signed, the formulation of our national anthem included the words “In God we Trust”. So how does this relate back to the pursuit of happiness?
Knowing that our founding fathers were basing the Declaration of Independence on the principals of the Christian faith, we can see that “the pursuit of happiness” was a statement of principal, centered on God, freedom, and family. It was for those reasons that they had fought for their independence, not for material gain. (Although there was something to be said for over taxation by the British Empire). This can be seen more clearly when we look at what is said in James 1:17, ``every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father''. The pursuit of happiness then, was the pursuit of freedom and liberty, not financial and material gain.
Which brings us to what it stands for now. The pursuit of happiness has become synonymous with the pursuit of material gain. But there is a problem with this; material gain doesn’t make one happy. Many of us have learned this personally, anticipated that getting the latest and greatest would make them happy, only to learn that it doesn’t. Perhaps a better example can be seen from my experience in Ukraine. Most of the people there have next to nothing. They live in a concrete house that bears more resemblance to a cave than an apartment building. They are poor, they have little in material possessions…yet they are happy. Not all of them of course, but a fair majority was. The same held true in Kyrgyzstan, no air conditioning, none of the many comforts we take for granted…but happy.
The pursuit of happiness for me is the pursuit of God, and God’s will. I believe this was true of many of our founding fathers, and I believe that this holds true for us today. Seeking God’s will, even if it fails to bring happiness, it does bring a sense of purpose, and fulfillment that the pursuit of material gain will never provide.
no, I'm not looking for this to turn into a republican vs democrat debate. No, I'm not trying to start a flame war, these are just my views on the matter, it upsets me that Politicians have chosen to abuse their positions for personal gain, but in the end it upsets me more that our entire culture has become based on personal gain. So...there you have it.
Of the three unalienable rights listed in the Declaration of Independence, the pursuit of happiness is perhaps the best known.
This statement is often looked at in its face value only, but has a much deeper connotation than we normally give it credit. On one hand, it can be used to surmise all that is wrong with this nation, and on the other, everything that is right.
The term “the pursuit of happiness” was coined by Samuel Johnson in his book “Rasselas” in 1759. In this fiction, we follow Rasselas, the son of the king of Abissinia (Modern Day Ethiopia), as he travels to seek adventure, and along the course of his journey, comes to the conclusion that there is not easy path to happiness.
This was certainly true for our forefathers, 8 years of war with the British Empire to establish our independence was not easy, and had resulted in much death, pain, and suffering. But what is the pursuit of happiness in this instance, why is this statement in our constitution, and why did we come to America in the first place?
The first Pilgrims came to America around 1620 for five main reasons, but perhaps the greatest was for the freedom of worship, freedom from religious persecution. This coincides with the protestant reformation, which split Europe between the Catholics and Protestants. For those that do not know, as the very name implies, the protestant reformation was a protest against certain teachings of the Catholic Church. So, to escape the persecution of the Catholic Church, they came to America, where they could worship God freely.
Moving forward 100 years to our founding fathers, those beliefs carried on, and this nation was founded on those same principals. This can be seen even clearer how less than 40 years after the declaration of independence was signed, the formulation of our national anthem included the words “In God we Trust”. So how does this relate back to the pursuit of happiness?
Knowing that our founding fathers were basing the Declaration of Independence on the principals of the Christian faith, we can see that “the pursuit of happiness” was a statement of principal, centered on God, freedom, and family. It was for those reasons that they had fought for their independence, not for material gain. (Although there was something to be said for over taxation by the British Empire). This can be seen more clearly when we look at what is said in James 1:17, ``every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father''. The pursuit of happiness then, was the pursuit of freedom and liberty, not financial and material gain.
Which brings us to what it stands for now. The pursuit of happiness has become synonymous with the pursuit of material gain. But there is a problem with this; material gain doesn’t make one happy. Many of us have learned this personally, anticipated that getting the latest and greatest would make them happy, only to learn that it doesn’t. Perhaps a better example can be seen from my experience in Ukraine. Most of the people there have next to nothing. They live in a concrete house that bears more resemblance to a cave than an apartment building. They are poor, they have little in material possessions…yet they are happy. Not all of them of course, but a fair majority was. The same held true in Kyrgyzstan, no air conditioning, none of the many comforts we take for granted…but happy.
The pursuit of happiness for me is the pursuit of God, and God’s will. I believe this was true of many of our founding fathers, and I believe that this holds true for us today. Seeking God’s will, even if it fails to bring happiness, it does bring a sense of purpose, and fulfillment that the pursuit of material gain will never provide.
no, I'm not looking for this to turn into a republican vs democrat debate. No, I'm not trying to start a flame war, these are just my views on the matter, it upsets me that Politicians have chosen to abuse their positions for personal gain, but in the end it upsets me more that our entire culture has become based on personal gain. So...there you have it.
Comments
I can see one critical and probably fatal flaw: That religion is needed for a deep and meaningful pursuit of happyness, moral, and culture. My life has been going quite well without a higher power and I am willing to wager that I have done more for society than many self proclaimed Christians (which, mind you, the variations in the theologys of all the denominations is so great that the only real common ground is that Jesus was God's son, thats it.).
Very few people want a Christian theological state, just a country based on good ol Christian values. What is depressing is that they don't realize that there is no difference between the two.
One last point> The first rule of critical thinking is to proportion your beliefs to the evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your premise to your entire statement resides in the fact that the moral standards of the country are decaying. Thats a big claim.
So give me big evidence.
Unfortunately, though I do not agree with the second part of your post. I believe firmly in the seperation of church and state which seems almost ironic now since Americans did come over from England for their religious freedom.
I believe (North) Americans (as well as other countries) have evolved their beliefs, extending the freedom they fought for from England (and then in the Civil War) to everyone, including their right to choose which is the cornerstone of democracy.
If the consequences our choices didn't matter (refering back to your first line) then we wouldn't have any reason for caring about our choices.
Since it is obvious that *some* of us care about our choices, then it does matter who holds the senate and house.... however.. I do agree that we are still going to see a moral decline... but I am hopeful that since yesterday's changes are ones we haven't seen in 12 years something good might come of it.
--------------------------
Is religion needed? The answer is an astounding yes from me, an atheist and agnostic. Are these contradictory? No. You may wonder why, and it goes to my belief as to the proper development of culturally civilized populations: one requires religion, or other similar cultural development mechanism, for society to have evolved to this point; one does not require such religion to maintain or continue such development of society.
What is the source of society? Laws. Morality. Ethics. How does religion tie into this? From religion developed early forms of morality and ethics. From morality and ethics developed laws, laws that continue to this day. Is religion always a right source of this? No. Corruption within religion is large and has been for many centuries. This seems counterproductive, but yet the source of these ideals, this morality, goes back millenniums, with the origins of western morality dating to Babylon, Egypt, and Greece.
Why don't we need religion anymore? Because with morality and ethics set, and laws established, the popular society, that of a free citizenry, will sustain and improve on the laws that exist and the morality that exists, regardless of the influences of religion. In many ways, public religion becomes a detriment to a free society, forcing segregation of a cultural nature during what should be free and open discussions.
Yet religion should exist: for it not to be would refuse our past; we would be as bad as those that persecute, either in the name of religion or in the name of abolishing religion. We cannot accept either.
To many, religion is a form of faith when they see not faith in themselves. They look to a higher power for faith, rather than just believing in themselves and those around them. It is an excuse to blame another for your ills and to not accept credit or give credit when given for success.
All in all: religion was required in our past, and needed in our presence, yet for it to obscure free discussion is wrong. In the future, it will not cease to exist, because many people will always want something to believe in other than themselves and their fellow humans. And thus this concludes my impromptu essay.
Why does this myth persist? Why does anyone still believe this nonsense about America being founded on Christianity? Are we talking about the same America? The one founded by these guys?
[quote][i]Originally written by Thomas Jefferson[/i]
[b]Christianity...[has become] the most perverted system that ever shone on man[/b][/quote]
[quote][i]Originally written by John Adams[/i]
[b]The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.[/b][/quote]
[quote][i]Originally written by Thomas Jefferson[/i]
[b]Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.[/b][/quote]
[quote][i]Originally written by John Adams[/i]
[b]Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, 'this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.[/b][/quote]
[quote][i]Originally written by James Madison[/i]
[b]Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise....During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.[/b][/quote]
[quote][i]Originally written by James Madison[/i]
[b]Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.[/b][/quote]
[quote][i]Originally written by Benjamin Franklin[/i]
[b]I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies.[/b][/quote]
[quote][i]Originally written by Thomas Paine[/i]
[b]The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion.[/b][/quote]
As for the pursuit of happiness, you're at least less wrong that most people tend to be on that one. But this stuff isn't open to free interpretation, no matter how much modern America has replaced Thomas Jefferson with Ayn Rand. Locke's original phrase was "life, liberty, property". Jefferson's original phrase when writing the declaration was "life, liberty, and the pursuit of [i]public[/i] happiness", which more or less meant participation in public civics and the good of the community (it is [i]not[/i] "the pursuit of freedom and liberty"; that's kind of already covered before the phrase gets to public happiness). This was later excised, so the story goes, because Franklin felt the word was unnecessary and the meaning clear, but it was nevertheless a distinct break from the Lockean individualist formulation.
"In god we trust" is another such insidious, modern myth. Francis Scott Key was a shitty poet who never quit his day job [i]for a reason[/i]. The phrase didn't even make it into actual government until the 1860s during the war, where it was printed on money because 600,000 dead people and a war on drove some people to church. But the phrase never took on any appreciable significance until 1956, when we suddenly felt a need to shove god into every hole we could find to distinguish ourselves from those godless commies. And so we trusted in god and became a nation under god and all but added god as the 51st star on the flag.
As for decaying moral standards, well, please show me some proof. 50 years ago, we were no less engaged in violent colonialism than we are today. Allende. Iran. Argentina. El Salvador. Nicaragua. Panama. South Africa. Israel. Palestine. Lebanon. East Timor. Afghanistan. Iraq. This list can go on and on. Perhaps there is a reasonable argument that things are getting worse, but god has fucking nothing to do with that. Belief in god is not a substitute for knowing history.
Also, the pilgrims were running from the Anglicans, not the Catholics.
On that note, fuck the pilgrims, fuck them with a nail-studded club.
I can't.
I can make dozens that aren't so:
Korea (It is split in two, with only half following our ideals)
Iran
Vietnam
Iraq
Israel (can you call it free with Palestinian oppression the way it is these days?)
Lebanon
etc...
I am with Croxis here, show me the clear evidence that we are in a state of moral decay.
First, morality is not a constant; it is always defined within contemporary context. Morality is dynamic and constant evolving.
Let's stop viewing our current situation in a myopic lens of the last 6-8 years, but more of the last 200 years, or even better, the past 2000.
Let's look at morality from three major points of view:
Slavery, within the last 200 years, slavery, as a sanctioned practice has completely disappeared. Does it still exist? Absolutely, in various overt and clandestine forms, all over the world. But I do not believe there is any government in this world that openly condone the practice of ownership of another human, whether or not they may allow it to happen. Until this change, throughout the whole history of civilized humanity, slavery has existed in some official capacity.
Equal Rights of Women, again, as we look throughout the existence of civilization we find women treated as 2nd class beings at worst property of men and at best helpless individuals that need man’s protection. Again, it has only been the last 200 years that this point of view has begun to die out, that women are indeed as capable and smart as men and able to fend for themselves. Do we as humanity have a long, long, way to go? Yes, but more progress has been made in the last 100 years than the past 10,000
Separation of Classes: If one looks at this issue in the context of Europe in the past 2000 years, you’ll find two classes, the rich and the poor, with very little in between. What’s worse, the rich care little for the poor and did much to institutionalize the position of those who had little.
Do not be disheartened by the state of the world, for it is a more moral, stable place than at any point in the whole of history. We as humanity have a long, long way to go, but we have come further than anyone realizes, especially in just the last 100 years.
Now whether religion is required or not, look at all three of the issues above, and you will find religion on both sides.
Jake
The only difference is what went on back then was hidden behind the veneer of the happy 1950's family, propogated by rose-tinted nostalgia that completely ignores things like institutionalized racism, rampant nationalism, and general paranoia.
[B]Ow. Ow. Ow. Owwwwwww. Ow. No.
Why does this myth persist? Why does anyone still believe this nonsense about America being founded on Christianity? Are we talking about the same America? The one founded by these guys?...
[/B][/QUOTE]
Gee... I didn't realize you were over 3 hundred years old there buddy...
;)
Faith. Faith is needed for many things on many levels.
It allows you to believe that that dollar bill in your hand actually means anything when purchasing or selling something.
It allows you to manage big ideas and formulas in science.
It allows you to have an answer to the unanswerable.
I'd rather live in a world with Faith than to believe that I and the universe around me is an accident or an abberation.
The USA is descending... maybe it's time, or maybe it's a scape goat to point fingers at, but in the end the truth is there that IT IS "falling from grace".
The biggest indicator is when the so-called moral leaders and pillars of the community are hypocrites, and practice all manner of "do as I say, not as I do..."
Sure, America has to be the greatest country in the world...
... what other country do you know can piss off the whole world like it does... :D
[B]Also, the pilgrims were running from the Anglicans, not the Catholics.[/B][/QUOTE]
Augh. I didn't even catch that the first time. Thanks.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Random Chaos [/i]
[B]As a side note, name one country that we have engaged in colonialism (that being any war that wasn't declared by congress or into which we were invited) that, today, exists as a sovereign, free nation upholding the beliefs which found western society: freedom of press, religion, and speech.[/B][/QUOTE]
South Korea "following our ideals" is somewhat suspect, but, then, I'm not really sure what our ideals exactly are. As for colonialism, not entirely all of it was waged with tanks and planes, and some not even CIA Special Action Sections. After all, we did kill over a hundred thousand people in Iraq in the 90s after the war with trade sanctions and never fired a shot. Etc.
That said, if you can find any country to fit your criteria, and I'm not sure it's possible, your best chances are in South America. Unsurprisingly, South America is presently full of Enemies of the United States.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Freejack [/i]
[B]Slavery, within the last 200 years, slavery, as a sanctioned practice has completely disappeared. Does it still exist? Absolutely, in various overt and clandestine forms, all over the world. But I do not believe there is any government in this world that openly condone the practice of ownership of another human, whether or not they may allow it to happen. Until this change, throughout the whole history of civilized humanity, slavery has existed in some official capacity.[/B][/QUOTE]
I'm not sure I agree with that. Are things better in the US now than they were in the 1860s? Yes. Globally, is the state of slavery as good as you say? I don't think so. That no government officially condones slavery is not nearly so significant as it sounds. Slavery exists everywhere, only now it exists in the shadows and we are free to ignore it if we choose. But if you look even a little deeper, you will see West African slaves being used for labor in cocoa fields (who eventually grow up to be teenage soldiers and amputees in Freetown), Mauritanian water slaves, sex slaves in absolutely every country on the planet, economic slavery in developing nations at the hands of the IMF and the World Bank in free zones, etc. Maybe that is still better than where we've been. But perhaps, really, plus ça change. I'm not sure.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Freejack [/i]
[B]Separation of Classes: If one looks at this issue in the context of Europe in the past 2000 years, you’ll find two classes, the rich and the poor, with very little in between. What’s worse, the rich care little for the poor and did much to institutionalize the position of those who had little.[/B][/QUOTE]
While I realize things are better in that respect over the course of two millenia, we've done a lot more to hide this aspect of our society than to change it.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]Faith ... allows you to manage big ideas and formulas in science.[/B][/QUOTE]
No. Absolutely not. Science is not about faith. It is fundamentally incompatible with the concept. Philosophy and indeed even religion may be informed by science, but pure science does not involve faith.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]The USA is descending
...
The biggest indicator is when the so-called moral leaders and pillars of the community are hypocrites, and practice all manner of "do as I say, not as I do..."[/B][/QUOTE]
How is this different from what we did in the 50s? We preached democracy and murdered legitimate democratic leaders because they threatened our interests. We did it to Allende and we tried to do it to Chavez. That's half a century of the same stuff. I'm not really seeing the change, except, as WHY pointed out, in our awareness of our hypocrisy.
I mean, hell, Pat Robertson profiteered off of Charles Taylor and slave labor in Liberian mines 20 years ago. This is not a new phenomenon.
[B]*backs away slowly* .... [/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, tha's right! You step off o' I will cut you! I will fucking cut you!
[B]Yeah, tha's right! You step off o' I will cut you! I will fucking cut you! [/B][/QUOTE]
*backs away slowly to pull out her lightsaber*
*evil grin*
Oh yeah!? yeah!?
[B]I'm not sure I agree with that. Are things better in the US now than they were in the 1860s? Yes. Globally, is the state of slavery as good as you say? I don't think so. That no government officially condones slavery is not nearly so significant as it sounds. Slavery exists everywhere, only now it exists in the shadows and we are free to ignore it if we choose. But if you look even a little deeper, you will see West African slaves being used for labor in cocoa fields (who eventually grow up to be teenage soldiers and amputees in Freetown), Mauritanian water slaves, sex slaves in absolutely every country on the planet, economic slavery in developing nations at the hands of the IMF and the World Bank in free zones, etc. Maybe that is still better than where we've been. But perhaps, really, plus ça change. I'm not sure. [/B][/QUOTE]
I think you missed my point a bit, from a morality standpoint, slavery is almost universally unacceptable. That was not the case just a short time ago. It is still a major problem, yes and does it take many different, possibly less visiable forms, yes. Any we have much to do as humanity to fix that.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Arethusa [/i]
[B]
While I realize things are better in that respect over the course of two millenia, we've done a lot more to hide this aspect of our society than to change it. [/B][/QUOTE]
Looking only at the western countries (which I realize is a minority of the world population) the state those considered poor is dramaticly better than those considered poor 100 years ago. The situation is also changing for the better in other regions, such as China and to a lesser extent India. Tools such as micro-financing and small scale cellular networks are becoming critical levers to help the most impoverished.
Also take a look at what the most wealthy do with their money. Look at civil society, at the number of charitable foundations, institutions and endowments, then compare that number (and their value) to those that existed at the turn of the 20th century. More is happening now from a charitable standpoint, than any time in human history.
Jake
[B]I think you missed my point a bit, from a morality standpoint, slavery is almost universally unacceptable. That was not the case just a short time ago. It is still a major problem, yes and does it take many different, possibly less visiable forms, yes. Any we have much to do as humanity to fix that. [/B][/QUOTE]
No, I get your point. I'm just not sure it's really better even though the average person finds slavery— or, more precisely, one specific, antiquated institution of it— unacceptable. How much do most people care, after all, about slave labor in making cheap clothes or chocolate, for example? True, things are better than they were in 1860 in a lot of ways that [i]are[/i] important. But a lot of other things are worse, and I do, at times, wonder if all we've really accomplished is making things bad [i]differently[/i]. Perhaps, perhaps not.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Freejack [/i]
[B]Looking only at the western countries (which I realize is a minority of the world population) the state those considered poor is dramaticly better than those considered poor 100 years ago. The situation is also changing for the better in other regions, such as China and to a lesser extent India. Tools such as micro-financing and small scale cellular networks are becoming critical levers to help the most impoverished.
Also take a look at what the most wealthy do with their money. Look at civil society, at the number of charitable foundations, institutions and endowments, then compare that number (and their value) to those that existed at the turn of the 20th century. More is happening now from a charitable standpoint, than any time in human history.[/B][/QUOTE]
Are you sure about that? Robber barons of the 19th century donated entire fortunes away (CEA, etc). Yes, the total amount of money being fed into charities and the like has increased, but the system to which a need for charities is endemic still exists, and more to the point, when you factor in expansion of the economy, inflation, population growth, the globalization of capitalism, and various other historical factors, I am again left wondering if things are really, genuinely better.
With lightsabres? Cooler!
Take pics!
[B]Wha. Bu. He. I AM NOT A GIRL. [/B][/QUOTE]
I think it's yer avatar that confuses some people... ;)
[url=http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/18549906/][img]http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/7719/mycylonlooksweirdxi1.jpg[/img][/url]
Guess I'm going to have to change it now. You people ruined something wonderful.
[B]Augh.
[url=http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/18549906/][img]http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/7719/mycylonlooksweirdxi1.jpg[/img][/url]
Guess I'm going to have to change it now. You people ruined something wonderful. [/B][/QUOTE]
I need a pond jumper.
[B]I assume you're looking for a sexually explicit cylon in your head? I'd suggest you consult Refa. [/B][/QUOTE]
*tries to imagine what that would look like... and then explodes*
[B]*cleans pieces of Dax off his shirt...* [/B][/QUOTE]
*shakes JackN's hand* .. even?
you owe me another explosion I think...
;)