I've Moved!
Well Played, Sir is now The Evolution of Reason.
Visit my new blog site at www.evolutionofreason.wordpress.com!
You will find my entire archive at my new site.
Thank you for visiting!
In an effort to make my blog easier and more versatile, I've moved my site to Wordpress. With the move, I've taken the opportunity to change the name of my blog. The Evolution of Reason represents my belief that the way we think has, and must continue to evolve. This is true in all areas of our lives, particularly our social interactions, politics, and faith.
At first, I hoped it was a fluke. Maybe a few rogue conservatives that started calling themselves "constitutionalists." Maybe Sarah Palin loyalists? Unfortunately, I keep hearing this absurd claim from conservatives. They really think that they are constitutional loyalists!
It drives me crazy to hear this, and it doesn't even take a lot to discredit them. A few simple questions will dispel this ridiculous attempt to make them feel that they are no longer a party of backwards, anti-equality, anti-progress religious fanatics.
Do you support the implied right to privacy in our Constitution that has been recognized by our Supreme Court...including the right to choose abortion?
Do you support the equal protection (14th Amendment) of all people within the boundaries of a state? Including illegal immigrants? Including homosexuals who choose to enter into the contract of marriage?
Do you believe in the freedom of, and from religion, that is provided in the First Amendment? Including not allowing the government to write any laws respecting the establishment of religion? (This means no anti-abortion laws.)
There are more questions that I could ask to disqualify any conservative as a "constitutionalist." However, I've never had to ask more than this. If they can truthfully answer yes to the above questions, you should probably follow up with something like, "are you aware that you are actually a liberal?"
I do understand that conservatives recognize that there is a bad connotation with the term "conservative." It tells people that you are against progress. That you want to go back to the way things used to be and don't want our society to progress...at least not at a reasonable rate. Don't be mad, conservatives...you've done this to yourselves. This makes them want to find a new term for themselves that sounds a little more positive. Unfortunately, the closest term I could find for conservative ideology is "constitutionalists of convenience." I use this term to mean that they passionately believe in the Constitution when it fits neatly into their ideology. However, they believe that anything that falls outside of those ideals, like gay marriage and abortion, should not be protected by the Constitution because it offends their religious and moral beliefs. This means they are willing to ignore the Constitution when it is not convenient for them.
Conservatives, whatever you choose to call yourselves...and I can think of a few more terms if you would like. Please...I beg you...stop calling yourselves "constitutionalists." You're just making yourselves look worse.
It seems today that I am finding many blog-worthy topics to discuss. I just read an article posted on Facebook by the The Everlasting GOP Stoppers that discusses Pulpit Freedom Sunday. This is an attempt by a bunch of pastors across the country to bait the IRS into investigating them. Here's how this works:
Churches enjoy federal tax exemptions. Tax law stipulates that tax-exempt organizations, such as churches, cannot engage in partisan politicking. These churches will preach decidedly partisan sermons, video tape them, and send them to the IRS. This is an effort to bait the IRS into investigating them and offer them an opportunity to challenge the law. The leaders of these churches claim that this law stifles religious liberty and free speech. Here's why they are wrong.
The law does not say that religious organizations cannot campaign or engage in partisan politics. It doesn't say that they can't actively support a particular candidate. What it says is that, if they choose to engage in these activities, they can no longer remain tax exempt. Let's be clear about tax exempt organizations...being tax exempt is a privilege, not a right.
The real problem I have with this is that these are supposed to be religious leaders. What kind of religious leader will knowingly violate a law when they are being given a gift in their tax exempt status? What does that teach your church members? Take the gifts given to you, but do nothing in return? That's a pathetic excuse for a religious leader.
If I were the decision maker in this instance, I would use the tapes from these churches and simply revoke the tax exempt status of each organization. No investigation. Why investigate when you have the proof provided by the organization itself? Let them take it to court. They will lose. And they should be ashamed of themselves for this behavior. This is the kind of behavior that gives religion a bad name, and they will have to answer for that someday.
This blog is stepping away from the political realm for a
minute (for the most part). I wanted to
discuss a concept many people don’t even know exists. It is called “ubuntu.” There have been many champions of the ubuntu
philosophy. One of the most respected
people who discussed this issue is Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Archbishop Tutu explained that -
“Ubuntu speaks particularly about the fact that you can't
exist as a human being in isolation. It speaks about our interconnectedness.
You can't be human all by yourself, and when you have this quality – Ubuntu –
you are known for your generosity. We think of ourselves far too frequently as
just individuals, separated from one another, whereas you are connected and
what you do affects the whole World. When you do well, it spreads out; it is
for the whole of humanity.”
I discovered this phrase when my father asked me to prepare
a musical slideshow for a sermon. I do
this periodically for him. In this case,
he wanted the content to be centered on this idea of ubuntu. I had never heard of it, so I did some
research. I watched some video of
Archbishop Tutu’s explanation. I really
fell in love with the idea that ubuntu expressed.
It starts with humans being interconnected. A man named Maslow once created a hierarchy
of needs. Based on his work, Alderfer’s
Hierarchy of Motivational Needs was created.
This theory lists three basic categories of needs. The primary level, existence, has the highest
priority. This is followed by
relatedness and finally growth needs.
One organization of Alderfer’s Hierarchy describes existence as including
the basic emotional needs and includes connectedness. I believe that ubuntu describes this very
concept. We have a basic, primal need to
for our connection with others.
As I have been studying this, I have been driving people
crazy saying the word ubuntu. Archbishop
Tutu had fun with this word in one of the videos that I watched during my
research. This video probably has, what
I consider, the definitive explanation of ubuntu.
“There is no such thing as a solitary individual. We say, ‘a person is a person through other
persons.’ That we belong in the bundle
of life. And I want you to be all you
can be, because that’s the only way I can be all I can be. I need you, I need you, to be you, so that I
can be me. And that’s why, you see, when
you dehumanize another - whether you like it or not – inexorably, you are
yourself dehumanized.”
I see the concept as having two big implications. First, the personal implication. I need to be the very best that I can be…so
that the world around me continues to improve and be the very best it can
be. This concept can be applied to so
many fronts. The individual front is
just the beginning. Apply the concept to
the business front and you can explain the need for corporate social
responsibility. Do we wonder why we get
so upset when we see corporations act greedy and under perform? It is because they are not living up to their
potential and it is affecting the world with which they are connected.
The next implication is the connection with others. To ensure that I can be the best that I can
be, I need everyone else to be the best that they can be. I have a responsibility to myself to support
others. By holding them down, or dehumanizing
them, I am actually holding myself back and dehumanizing myself. What a novel concept. We must uphold others to ensure that we can
continue to stand up ourselves.
Now, what you can’t forget is that these others may not be
what you think they should be. It is not
your job to make them into what you want them to be, but to provide them
support when they need it. If you
attempt to hold back who they are, you are holding yourself back by
extension.
So, you can see where I’m going with this. There have been many issues lately that have
torn the people of the U.S. apart. They
are fighting about immigration, spending, health care, and even the religion of
the President. In most cases, I believe
that the fight comes from the intent to make things better. The problem is that people are beating each
other down to make their point. Holding
with the idea of ubuntu, they are also beating themselves down. Think about it…have you ever heard anyone say
something like, “Obama is a Muslim,” or anything to that effect? Aside from the fact that he’s not, the
question remains – why would it matter?
If he were a Muslim, why would we not hold him up and support him to be
the best President and Muslim that he could be?
In turn, that would help us be the very best citizens that we could
be. That’s not saying that you have to
agree with everything he says and does, but why not be supportive and
constructive? It can only make you
better.
So, back away from the political ideas, I’ll touch on the
religious implication of ubuntu. I can’t
write anything better than what Archbishop Tutu said in his sermon:
“Jesus did not say, ‘I, if I be lifted up, will draw
some. Jesus said, ‘I, if I be lifted up,
will draw all.’ All. All.
All. All. Black, white, yellow,
rich, poor, clever, not-so-clever, beautiful, not-so-beautiful. It’s, it’s one of the most radical things. All!
All. All belong. Gay, lesbian, so-called straight. All, all are meant to be held in this
incredible embrace that will not let us go.”
This is truly an inspired vision. I post this simply as a way to play my part
in ubuntu. Think about this for a
bit. Watch some of the videos of
Archbishop Tutu, Nelson Mandela, and many others who speak of ubuntu. Think about how it can apply to your life,
and how you view others. And, most
importantly, pass it on.
Heard enough? Are you ready to walk into the polls and cast your vote for me? No? Why not? Most likely, you will walk into the polls and vote for a candidate this November with little more than a list of buzzwords you heard from their commercials or from some political analyst. I’ve seen a trend in the recent elections that has been disturbing me. Many political ads and commercials have been using buzzwords to entice voters lately. Now I have no problem with the use of buzzwords. I know a little bit about marketing and I know that buzzwords are a part of marketing that is used every day in advertising. This isn’t about the use of buzzwords along with clever marketing…it’s about people voting simply on buzzwords.
Oh, you don’t do that? Well, let’s test that statement. Have you said, “The government can’t just keep spending” anytime recently? Or maybe you’ve talked about how the country is going so far into debt? I doubt that very many can honestly say that they haven’t uttered something along these lines in the last few years. So the next question is, what do you really know about these topics? What is the country’s debt? What was it before the incumbents took office? How does the government spend money? What is the debt ceiling? What does Keynesian economics mean? Does our government practice this? If you can answer these questions accurately, then this post doesn’t apply to you. If not, you may have fallen into the buzzwords trap along with the majority of the country.
Seriously, what do they really tell you when you listen to an analyst or watch a commercial? Let’s take a look at a typical commercial from the recent primaries. This commercial was for Richard Mourdock, a candidate running against 35 year Senator Dick Lugar. This commercial has absolutely nothing to say. There are some checklists though…they have Dick Lugar with the words “Bailouts,” “Tax Hikes,” and “Obama Justices.” Then they have one with Mourdock with the words “Opposes Bailouts,” “Fights Obamacare,” “Balanced Budget,” and “Less Debt.” There is literally no substantial information or justification for voting for this guy except for the fact that he knows how to use buzzwords. Ask yourself…what is his record? What are his qualifications? Don’t know? Maybe because they don’t want to tell you anything if they know they can get the votes by using a few key terms with no real meaning. Here’s the scary thing…he won the primary. A 35-year incumbent lost his seat to buzz words. Now, I’m not saying that I would want Lugar in office. I had a problem with him that had nothing to do with any of the buzzwords. I think that some people had the same problem concerning his residency, which cost him dearly. Regardless…he still lost to a man who campaigned with buzzwords.
This brings me to the use of social hot topics to scare people into voting. While I’m vehemently against political parties (a topic for a later blog), I do recognize that the chances of them going away any time soon is insanely slim to none. Unfortunately, what I have seen many politicians doing lately is using social issues as selling points to scare people away from voting for the other party. Both sides use gay marriage to scare people – immigration has become an issue – and if I hear one more thing about the President’s nationality or religion, I might just snap. First, unless you are gay, why in the hell does it matter to you if marriage between two homosexuals is legally recognized in the U.S.? If you believe marriage is a legal contract, then the government has no right to refuse marriage based on a religious belief. If you believe that it is a religious institution then THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO REGULATE IT BASED ON A RELIGIOUS BELIEF. Here’s the bottom line…it comes up before elections because one side says that if you vote for the other party gays will be able to marry and we’ll all go to hell, turn gay ourselves, or your marriage will mean nothing and your spouse will leave you. This is to scare you into voting how they want you to vote. The other side presents the issue hoping to look like the defenders of the weak riding in on their stallions to defeat the evil oppressors. While I must say that I do support gay marriage, I would really love to see something actually done about the issue so that the political pandering would all just go away.
Immigration – good grief. Everyone is blaming everyone else for the immigration problem. Here’s the fix…build a big ass wall. It will put a crap load of people to work and reduce the amount of illegal immigration. But, wait! Don’t forget that it has to be paid for…so your taxes will have to go up. You can’t have everything you want. To fix this immigration problem the government will have to spend money. Deal with it and stop letting the politicians scare you into thinking that we will lose our sovereignty and become Mexico, Jr. if you don’t vote for them.
The last one that I will briefly address is the nationality and religion of the President. Here’s the thing…stop questioning it. It’s old and boring. The man will not be removed from office. His credentials have been checked, verified, and re-verified so many times that he is probably the most confirmed citizen in United States history. Every court case that has been lost trying to prove he’s not is just adding to the mountain of evidence that there is no justification for this garbage. Oh, and I do believe that this has everything to do with the man’s race. Don’t like being called a racist? Deal with it. If you are still questioning this after this amount of time and all of the evidence that has been put forth, you are doing it for reasons of race. If you say otherwise, you are a liar, sir.
Now his religion. Oh my gosh…he’s a MUSLIM! Well, he’s not…but that’s a great way to scare the hell out of the ignorant rednecks in the U.S. After 9/11, the words Muslim and Islam have almost become profanity. Who gives a crap if the man is a Muslim? Since when did that have any bearing on his Presidency? Oh, I forgot…it’s because bigotry against Muslims is accepted now that a few extremists who called themselves Muslims (which I take issue with) attacked and killed a bunch of Americans. As I have written before…these kinds of views are the most unpatriotic and offensive views that I can imagine coming from citizens of this great country. A few weeks ago, my cousin was interred in Arlington National Cemetery after he was killed in action serving as a Marine. Do me a favor and don’t spit on his grave, the graves of those like him, and the face of those who have served and still serve to protect our freedoms by spreading your hate and fear. This is a nation of acceptance and tolerance. If you are afraid of a Muslim in office then you belong elsewhere. And if you allow this kind of garbage to sway your vote, then you are as bad as those who spew this filth in the first place.
These people think that you are dumb. They think that they can throw a bunch of words with no substance at you and you will run right out and cast your vote for them. The question is: are you going to prove them right? Are you going to vote for buzzwords, or for a representative?
