| Wow! (Not just "Whoa!") |  |  | |
| Re: Position Statement.... 2nd Draft -- Federal Farmer | Post Reply |  |
Forum |
|
Posted by: Remi 04/20/2008, 13:54:24  (About author)
Edit |
I hope answering the second draft won't leave out anything important. (Should I maybe delete the first draft?) But let's start with your preliminary statement: Americas problem is the commerce sector runs the government. (In steps the multinational corporations/global elite/World Government) I strongly agree with the first sentence, noting only that America has many problems, but that certainly one of the biggest is as you say. I think one indication of this is the extent to which we are all subjected to a constant barrage of ads. Madison Avenue (I'm just using this phrase as a shorthand for the advertising industry) intrudes heavily into virtually all the television channels. I have developed a habit of muting the sound whenever a commercial comes on. It intrudes mercilessly on the Internet. Perhaps this exaggerated emphasis on selling goods and services is simply the result of a strong ideologically based acceptance of free market capitalism as the end-all and be-all of the good life. I don't understand "In steps . . ." Do you mean that the three things you list step in? (If so, you meant to say "In step . . .") Or do you mean that the three things represent some kind of sequence of steps or stages moving toward some end state? Next you quote John Bates's essay in which he identifies nationalism and religion as the two principle obstacles to the desired end. (For the moment I'll leave that end undefined.) I'm not sure I understand what you meant by asking if religion and nationalism are "two sides of a controlled argument". Perhaps they are actually, in some sense, the same argument, since both religion and nationalism involve unquestioning acceptance of beliefs. I would add ideology which all too frequently does the same thing. Next you identify misinformation or secrecy as "the only" stumbling blocks. Certainly they are important. People who are dedicated to maintaining religious, national-historic, or ideological beliefs very frequently do engage in suppression of information and promulgation of false information. Then you say,
To a true patriot Religion, Nationalism, and Humanity are all the same. I take it that your concept of "a true patriot" is whatever it is we want to be and want all others to be. I can't agree that those three things are all the same. But I suspect that I can sympathize with your desire for people to have a positive attitude toward what the framers of the Constitution called "the general welfare". An aside seems appropriate here. I watched Pope Benedict XVI on television and noticed that I was experiencing a positive emotional response to him and the associated pageantry. Thoughts leading to these positive feelings were something like, "Here is a thoroughly good man doing his utmost to promote world peace. Look at him! What a benign and inspiring example of a typical loving Italian father! How humble he is in spite of his situation as a representative of Jesus of Nazareth who so insightfully promoted peace and love!" I could go on, but I'll be merciful. Of course I later found out that he's German, not Italian, and that some of his statements vis-a-vis the policies of the Roman Catholic Church are impossible for me to approve or agree with. The reason I mention this little episode is that I am in hopes that FF will see in it a sort of emotional consonance with his remark about the "true patriot". Maybe he'll think I might be a candidate for that appellation!
I feel quite sorry for John Bates if the ideas expressed above are his true thoughts. Does anyone have a clear definition of Love, or know exactly what it is? According to Mr. Bates Love as well as God does not exist. Well, according to 1 John 4:8 ". . . God is love." Again it seems to me that FF is ". . . feeling out of sight for the ends of Being and ideal Grace" (to quote E. B. Browning), and I sympathize with his need to do that. And in some sense this longing for benevolence must be nearly universal. He is right not to be sure he feels sorry for John Bates. It all depends on whether the ideas he expresses are his "true thoughts" as read by FF. This is somewhat reminiscent of my thoughts in seeing the Pope on TV. Well, all this simply emphasizes the real difficulty of grappling realistically and effectively with these enormous problems! And now DWA will ask for clarity. Lotsa luck! Then,
Although I understand his distrust for organized religion, religion is only a part of society. Society as a whole is not completely defined by its religion. If you look at different religions they all have more in common than they have in differences. Honesty, compassion, peace... Sounds like good building blocks to me. Yes. The task is to refine religion, nationalism, and ideology so that the good parts come through and leave the bad parts behind. How can this be done? Is it possible? I make so bold as to say that I believe it is possible. At this point I'm going to have to suspend this post. I'll come back and discuss other parts of your very long but very welcome contribution to our discussions, Federal Farmer!
 |
| Post Reply | Email Friend | Alert |
|
Previous | Next | Current page |
|
