Government at all levels is financially, intellectually and morally bankrupt. Conservatives, libertarians and Tea Partiers are demanding radically less government. We may end up getting it, if only because government will no longer be able to borrow money to fund their on-going invasion and occupation of our lives.
World peace starts with inner peace
Joyful individuals make up a harmonious family, which then joins other families to constitute a well-ordered community. And communities are the building blocks of states and nations. Like a house, a community cannot be built from the top down. It must be built from the foundation up.
Fundamental change will challenge us as individuals, as families, and as communities. We will be required to muster levels of self-sufficiency, prudence, and cooperation not required of Americans since The Greatest Generation was in diapers.
The Ten Commandments show us the way
Catholics, Protestants, and Jewish people all agree on the commandments, they just divide them up in different ways. In fact, "According to Jewish tradition, G-d gave the Jewish people 613 mitzvot (commandments)." (Judaism 101). I mention this because I don't want the discussion to get bogged down in who's got the "right" set of commandments.
The Ten Commandments tell us how to worship God and how to deal with one another. Traditional Judaism teaches that the first tablet contains the commandments concerning our duties to God, and the second tablet lists our duties to others. The commandments are God's prescription for individual, family and community harmony.
Get Right With God
I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
You shall have no other gods before me
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain
Observe the sabbath day, to keep it holy
A person who has lost connection with God is adrift, chasing shadows and filling the emptiness with false idols. Ever notice how those who abandon God inevitably end up building a golden calf? If you lost your credit cards and your ability to buy flashy consumer goods, shopping sprees, nights on the town and vacations, could you cope? How many of us could not?
Family is the fundamental building block of society
Honor your father and your mother
We have social problems in this country because we have broken families. We all want to belong, and if a kid is alienated from his own family or if the family is dysfunctional, he will find another family. It could be church, scouting, or even a welcoming family down the street, but more often it is gangs or loose groups of fellow alienated adolescents, all on a downward spiral.
Parents have the primary responsibility to teach their children. School teachers, religious education teachers, social workers and scout leaders are all secondary. God grants parents a grave responsibility when he allows us to create life.
Respect other families
God's prohibition of theft and murder is easy to understand. Respect for life and property are essential to a prosperous society. The remainder of the commandments can be seen as not just the duty we owe to others, but also duties that uphold the integrity of the family.
You shall not commit adulteryWhen an adulterous relationship involves two married people, two families are harmed. Coveting a neighbor's spouse or any of his or her stuff just causes problems, often leading to the breaking of other commandments, irresponsible consumption, and family dysfunction. Bearing false witness (lying) destroys trust, which is the lifeblood of a prosperous free market and free society.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's.
God's Law: Sublime, yet simple to understand
What struck me most as I contemplated this topic is that even the irreligious or atheistic can see the wisdom of these commandments, even if they do not agree with them all. Indeed, Western society is based upon the values contained in God's law, even though secular documents provide our legal foundations.
Governments can make laws, but it takes a responsible people to make a prosperous society.
24 comments:
"A person who has lost connection with God is adrift, chasing shadows and filling the emptiness with false idols."
That's rather a broad statement and untrue, may I add. My family members are nonbelievers and none is adrift or chasing shadows. They have families, are employed, love and cherish their children and are joyful in what they have. They are not rich in material goods, but rather in those intangible qualities that enrich one's life: Empathy, loyalty, kindness, and love.
I don't know why it is that believers need to portray nonbelievers as miserable, lost beings.
We're not. Our lives are fulfilled, we're happy, we care about each other, our families, our neighbors, our country, and we believe in reaching out to those who are in need.
And ethologists (Frans de Waald, for example) can point to quite a bit of evidence that this behavior has nothing to do with a belief in a supernatural being, but is part of our genetic make-up. We are programmed for this sort of great ape altruism and caring for others. No god is involved. Or "golden calves."
You've made an erroneous assumption in stating one cannot be happy and a decent human being without believing in supernatural beings.
It just isn't the truth. And there are millions and millions of us to prove it.
And I might add that I know plenty of people who believe in gods and they surround themselves with plenty of "golden calves."
@ Shaw,,, I am curious, since I do not get the chance to interact with atheists:
Do you folks have funerals and if so, what do you say at them?
Okay, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and play the devil's advocate, from the Quran:
1.There is no other god beside God. He is the one God; there is no other god beside Him.
2. There is nothing that equals him. No visions can encompas Him, but He encompasses all visions. My Lord, make this a peaceful land, and protect me and my children from worshiping idols.
3. Do not subject God's name to your casual swearing, that you may appear righteous, pious, or to attain credibility among the people.
4. ...and your parents shall be honored. As long as on or both of them live, you shall never show annoyance to them, nor shall you shout at them; you shall treat them amicably.
5. The thief, male or female, you shall mark their handss as punishment for their crim, and to serve as an example from God.
6. ...incur God's comdemneation upon him, if he was lying. Fo not whithold any testimony by concealing what you had witnessed. Anyone who witholds testimony is sinful at heart.
7. ...anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people. You shall not kill any person - for God has made life sacred- except in the course of justice.
8. You shall not commit adultery; it is a gross sin, and an evil behaviour.
9. Do not covet what we bestowed upon any other people.
10. O you who believe, when the Congregational Prayer is announced on Friday, you shall hasten to the commemoration of God, and drop all business.
Shaw: You have made an erroneous assumption. Nowhere did I say unbelievers are unhappy.
What I said was that those who do not have God in their lives will create one. Environmentalism comes to mind.
I also did not say unbelievers were bad people.
Finn: You're over my head...
And a bit further out on that limb, from our Budhist friends:
The Four Noble Truths.
1. Life is Suffering.
2. Suffering is caused by Craving.
3. Elimination of Craving, eliminates Suffering.
4. The path that leads away from Suffering is the path that leads away from Craving.
The Noble Eightfold Path
1. Right View. See things as they really are, not as they appear or as you want them to be.
2. Right Intention. Aspire to rid yourself of what you know to be wrong and immoral.
3. Right Speech. Abstain from lying, devisive speech, abusive speech, and idle chatter.
4. Right Action. Be morally upright in one's activities. Abstain from taking life, stealing, illicit sexual activity.
5. Right Livelihood. Do not engage in immoral trade that directly or indirectly harms others.
6. Right Effort. Persist in abandoning wrong and harmful thoughts, words, and deed. Be good and useful to yourself and others without thought for difficulty or weariness involved.
7. Right Mindfulness. Be mindful and deliberate in what you think, say, and do. Do not act or speak due to inattention or forgetfullness.
8. Right Concentration. Practice meditation, develop wisdom, insight, examine the true nature of phenomena. (This instruction is given to the monastic orders).
To get around to making my point: It seems to me that problems arise not out of which set of rules you choose to follow, but from not following them honestly, by spirit and intent.
Cheers!
~Finntann~
Finn: OK, I'm a little dense sometimes.
I have always found Buddhism very attractive for the passages you cite.
You should read "Perennial Philosophy" by Aldous Huxley, it's right up your alley.
"Do you folks have funerals and if so, what do you say at them?"
My brother-in-law died 2 years ago. He was a nonbeliever. His family held a memorial service at his home where his family and friends gathered to tell their favorite stories about F.
His two children are graduates of Oberlin Conservatory. One plays the viola, the other, the violin. They gathered their friends together and played some of F.'s favorite string quartet pieces, and F.'s brother-in-law read a poem he wrote about F. and his love of baseball.
Other of F.'s favorite poems and passages from his favorite books were recited, and then we all had a luncheon that family and friends contributed to.
His children set up a room with F.'s drawings, paintings, baseball and other sports memorabilia [he played rugby at Amherst College], and photos of Fred from childhood to just before he died.
That's just one memorial for a nonbeliever. I've been to many more where family and friends give talks about the deceased, read poems, and play live music that the deceased enjoyed in his or her life.
Each memorial service was geared to the deceased's personal life and each person who spoke about the deceased shared wonderful memories with family and friends.
I love the way hou you broke down the 10 Commandments! If only we could keep them, let alone our government.
Can you imagine if we did follow these few simple rules how wonderful this world and nation would be? Truly bliss.
Silverfiddle, I'll give you a whole bucketful of "amens" on that post.
James Madison knew what the key to our success would be when he stated:
“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”
And, of course, there is the famous quote from John Adams that the "Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
I've met a lot of atheists that try to tell me how deeply happy they are, but their constant and burning cynicism and sneering attitudes tend to take away any credibility. Maybe there are atheists that are relatively happy, but none of the multitude of atheists I have come in contact with show even the least evidence of it.
"I've met a lot of atheists that try to tell me how deeply happy they are, but their constant and burning cynicism and sneering attitudes tend to take away any credibility. Maybe there are atheists that are relatively happy, but none of the multitude of atheists I have come in contact with show even the least evidence of it."
Anyone can say anything without evidence, as the above commenter has. Just saying that "the multitude of atheists" he/she knows doesn't show the least evidence of happiness doesn't make it a fact. That's just an opinion, and everyone has one.
It has always fascinated me how defensive believers become when they meet a happy and well-adjusted nonbeliever--I don't call myself an "atheist" since the existence god cannot be proved or disproved.
But actual studies show a more complex answer to whether believers are happier than nonbelievers.
"Religious people are both happier and unhappier. In other words, they tend to be found at either extremes of the happiness scale. ...A higher percentage of religious people say that they are extremely happy, compared with convinced atheists. But a higher percentage also say that they're extremely unhappy. Atheists are more likely to report being somewhere in-between.
Religious service-goers tend to be happier. Teasing apart the data in more detail in a multilevel analysis that takes into account all sorts of national-level factors (wealth, democracy, corruption etc) and individual-level factors (personal income, health, education, number of friends, recreational activities, etc) shows that people who go to religious services and belong to religious organisations are happier.
Non-believers tend to be happier. In the same analysis, people who believe in god are much less happy. In other words, the happiest people are those who take part in the social side of religion but don't take all the god stuff too seriously.
The effect depends on how religious the country is. The more religious on average the country is, the happier believers are.
In countries that are not very religious, non-believers are happier than believers.
SOURCE
Shaw,,Thank you for the response, I was not meaning to be flippant in my question but rather serious and thank you once again.
Memorials are very apropos as Believers utilize the same but I believe that if you are an atheist the phrase Rest in Peace cannot be used,,am I correct?
My reasoning is this; For one to rest in peace there must be an entity to secure that peace and since,,,,you get my drift.
"My reasoning is this; For one to rest in peace there must be an entity to secure that peace and since,,,,you get my drift."
That is certainly one way to understand the meaning of "RIP."
Another is that since the deceased no longer exists, and therefore, is not subject to the slings and arrows of outrageous misfortunes, then he or she is truly a peace.
>Anyone can say anything without evidence, as the above commenter has. Just saying that "the multitude of atheists" he/she knows doesn't show the least evidence of happiness doesn't make it a fact.
I think that it was perfectly clear from the simple, straightforward language I used that I was limiting my assertion to my own experiences. My evidence is the actual behavior that I have observed, none of which has been indicative of a happy person. I also stated clearly that there may be happy atheists somewhere outside my sphere of experience, but I have not met them in any of the places I have lived around the world. In other words, I have yet to see any real evidence of their existence. Lacking such evidence of their existence, I have chosen not to believe in their existence.
>the existence god cannot be proved or disproved.
Actual experience with God would prove His existence. As many other people, I have had such experience.
To disprove his existence, you would have to be able to see simultaneously into every possible location of existence and see that there was no God there. That ability, of course, would make you a God, so, yes, atheists do have a rather daunting (impossible) task if they want to prove their stance with actual evidence.
I don't doubt you believe you've experienced God.
But your personal experience is not proof of a god's existence.
In your comment, you claimed "multitudes" of atheists you knew were not happy.
A definition of "multitudes" is "countlessly large numbers."
I'm to believe that you know "countlessly large numbers" of atheists and that all of these countless nonbelievers do not show any evidence of happiness?
Most of my family and friends are nonbelievers. Now that is not a "multitude" to be sure, but in my small sampling, each and everyone one of my personally known nonbelievers is quite happy, content, and well adjusted.
"To disprove his existence, you would have to be able to see simultaneously into every possible location of existence and see that there was no God there."
No. I don't try to disprove negatives.
You believe in a god on the basis of faith. Faith is defined as the belief in something without any evidence.
A personal experience is not evidence.
Otherwise, I'd have to believe that my neighbor down the street actually had a visit from an alien being from another galaxy because he insists this happened, and he's not crazy, but earnestly believes in his experience.
It is real to him. So be it. His believing in alien visitors doesn't harm me. And it makes him feel special.
Why should I dissuade him?
My nonbelief does not threaten your belief, and your belief does not threaten my nonbelief.
Correction: I should have written I don't try to PROVE an UNQUALIFIED negative.
I can prove a qualified negative such as "There are no people writing in Chines on this comment board at this moment: 1:15 PM EST, 11/22/1020."
Did I nemtion I'm dyslexic?
>I'm to believe that you know "countlessly large numbers" of atheists
I'm in academia. I know all kinds of bizarre people from all over the world.
>that all of these countless nonbelievers do not show any evidence of happiness?
As I have stated multiple times, I have never seen any evidence of it. Superficial pleasure or temporary gladness, yes. Real happiness, no.
>each and everyone one of my personally known nonbelievers is quite happy, content, and well adjusted.
As you keep ignoring, I have stated repeatedly that I am limiting it to my own experiences, and I acknowledge that there are things outside my sphere of experience. I have never met your circle of acquaintances, so they are outside my sphere of experience. In other words, they are unrelated to my statement. Your personal experience does not serve as evidence for me.
>No. I don't try to disprove negatives.
What you personally choose to do is irrelevant. Reason dictates that to prove the non-existence of something, you would have to have the ability I described.
>You believe in a god on the basis of faith.
And on the basis of experience.
>Faith is defined as the belief in something without any evidence.
No it's not. Faith is a knowledge of things that are not seen, but which are true. Believing in something without any evidence whatsoever is nothing but fantasy.
>A personal experience is not evidence.
ALL evidence is personal experience, whether it be interaction with someone or the performance of scientific experimentation or the working of a logical argument. The assertion that personal experience is not evidence is ludicrous, and would mean that there is no such thing as evidence. The only alternative is hearsay.
In addition, I'm not sure why you're making the strange leap to assuming that I'm saying that evidence for me is evidence for you. As I stated clearly, I never asserted nor even implied such an impossible thing. If you had (and recognized, of course) personal experience with God, that would serve as evidence to you of his existence (assuming that you have normal cognitive function; it would not apply to the intellectually disabled or mentally ill). Whether an individual accepts that evidence or not is, of course, a separate issue.
And where did the whole thing about being threatened or not threatened by someone's beliefs come in? Again, it's irrelevant.
Oh, and a piece of advice. Never cite About.com as a source. It's almost as bad as Wikipedia.
Sheesh...
"I have never seen any evidence of it. Superficial pleasure or temporary gladness, yes. Real happiness, no."
Define "real happiness."
And how would you, or anyone, know how another person
experiences "real happiness?" Did you ask these nonbelievers probing questions about their "temporary gladness" and absence of "real happiness?"
All of what you written is subjective, and therefore, under the scope of personal opinion, not evidence. You couldn't possibly know what nonbelievers are actually experiencing and feeling. You've explained what YOU think they feel and expience, not what is actually going on in their minds.
There is no way someone can determine another person's "real happiness." You can't.
And I stand by the definition of faith as a belief in something without any evidence for that belief.
"Faith is a knowledge of things that are not seen, but which are true."
No. That's YOUR definition, not anything defined in any dictionary
About.com cited a study done by Harvard University. My source stands.
The problem with your answers to me is that you don't define any of your terms, so that it is impossible to discuss the issues.
"real happiness"
What is "real happiness" and how do you know whether another human being is experincing it or not?
And faith being knowledge about things unseen but that are true?
What sort of "things?" And how do you, or anyone, define "unseen things" as true?
Also, you inform us that you're in academia. That's nice. But you don't tell us in what capacity.
Arguments from authority don't work either when those arguments are unquantifiable.
>Define "real happiness."
Why? It's clear that you're not actually interested in understanding. You're a troll, doing the usual troll things on somebody else's blog.
>And how would you, or anyone, know how another person
experiences "real happiness?"
Are you really, truly incapable of reading all of the words in my comments? I have stated EXPLICITLY over and over again that I am describing my OBSERVATIONS. I have never even implied that I could see into the hearts of others. I stated my observation of outward behavior of the individuals in question (cynicism and a generally--and consistently--negative outlook), and that such observable behavior is not compatible with what rational adults would ordinarily view as happiness, even in a rather broad sense.
If your definition of happiness includes cynicism and constant negativity, then I leave you to it.
That's wonderful that you enjoy your thoroughly secular interpretation of faith. Not surprisingly, those who actually EXPERIENCE faith, and therefore know something about it, would disagree with you, but you are, of course, free to have your own interpretation of things of which you have no actual knowledge.
>Also, you inform us that you're in academia. That's nice. But you don't tell us in what capacity.
Why would I tell you "in what capacity?" It has absolutely nothing to do with my comment. Read it again.
>Arguments from authority don't work either when those arguments are unquantifiable.
Okay, I'm going to have to stop responding if you are going to persist so stubbornly in misinterpreting my comments, regardless of how clearly I state my views. This is just far too bizarre. Authority had nothing to do with my comment. Read it again.
> About.com cited a study done by Harvard University. My source stands.
And your credibility, therefore, does not. Maybe you could actually put forth the effort to get the study and cite that instead?
As for defining terms, I didn't think that it was necessary to define terms that were so simple and straightforward. There's nothing at all complicated about anything I have written.
You see, this is why I usually just ignore trolls. The troll MO is to read (or rather, misread) selectively, stray from what was actually written to asserting that something else was implied, and beat on the same straw man over and over again. (And on top of it, to have the gall to cite something as unreliable as About.com.)
I'm going to make a guess that whatever your connection is in academia, it is not in science.
Asking someone to define terms in a discussion is not being a troll, it's being precise.
Your dismissal of my counterpoints and your labeling me a "troll" points to the reluctance on your part to inform us of what exactly mean and shows us your need to be correct in an argument.
There's no way to intelligently discuss an idea without defining its terms. Otherwise we're doing nothing but throwing jello balls at each other.
You introduced several ideas in your comment; and when I asked you to define them, or at the very least, explain how you come to know these things as facts, you called me troll.
Usually when people can't defend their ideas, they resort to calling people names.
I learned this years ago in a schoolyard.
Here's Bastiatarian's original comment that set Shaw off:
"I've met a lot of atheists that try to tell me how deeply happy they are, but their constant and burning cynicism and sneering attitudes tend to take away any credibility. Maybe there are atheists that are relatively happy, but none of the multitude of atheists I have come in contact with show even the least evidence of it.
From that personal observation, Shaw constructed a straw man.
Bastiatarian made it clear he was speaking from his own experience, and he only cited working in academia as an explanation for how he meets such a large and varied number of people, not to argue from authority.
This is not discussing. It is an endless downward spiral of ankle biting.
Funny thing, Shaw. You press Bastiatarian to define happiness, yet the article you cite fails to do that.
So you impose higher standards on those you disagree with, while giving sources you agree with a free pass. That in itself explains much about liberalism.
The article I cited DID define happiness.
If you or Bastiatarian had followed the link on the study cited in About.com (which neither of you did) you would have learned how happiness was defined and learned that the study was conducted by Adam Okulicz-Kozaryn, a social scientist at Harvard, who has been looking at religion and happiness around the world.
That's my first rebuttal to SF's critique of my answers to B.
B. claimed with reference to nonbelievers and happiness: "I have never seen any evidence of it. Superficial pleasure or temporary gladness, yes. Real happiness, no."
Even if he were speaking only in terms of personal knowledge, my legitimate question to him was HOW he, or anyone, defines any other human being's "real happiness." And how can he or anyone else know what makes that person happy. Claiming "personal knowledge" explains nothing and means even less.
And this about his academic credential:
SK: "I'm to believe that you know "countlessly large numbers" of atheists.
B. "I'm in academia. I know all kinds of bizarre people from all over the world."
I'm well aware of what that snide remark refers to. His sarcasm wasn't lost on me, hence my rebuttal to his academic claim.
You were sloppy, SF, and misread my rebuttals. That explains a lot about you.
And if I'm not exact in my answers, the fault lies with me alone. My errors do not indict an entire group of people.
Then you know what, Shaw? You should have cited and linked the actual study instead of about.com
You are engaging in petty pedantry and Coulteresque controversy stirring.
This post was about world peace through inner peace, and how individuals, families and communities form the building blocks of society. I spoke from a Christian point of view, but was inclusive of non-believers.
You chose to pivot on one very fine point. You really need to examine your biases. They can blind you to the larger message, which could be valid, even coming from a hated rightwing redneck.
Post a Comment