|
The content of my
messages is derived from the philosophical system that I find works
for me, to which I have given the name 'Practical (Natural) Hedonism'
because that most adequately describes the source and nature of my
precepts. It functions in a way vastly different from Liberalism and
offers an alternative to that and Conservatism, both of which I despise. I
do not call it a religion because a validation of natural
principles is a
requirement of it, and an ongoing process of learning which may uncover
new facts that must, if I am to be honest, cause me to change the methods
or ideas they affect; and have quite often done so. It is a process of
elimination, as opposed to the normal confirmation bias which I call 'preverification'
that supports both of the recognized wings of politics, and religion. The
root principle upon which all of it is built is that of interactive action
and consequence, in which I see all things as being components of events
in an ongoing process. Nothing in this idea denies a role for
spirituality,
which must carry its own testable load, as a cause, and as an effect.
I may not call it a
religion, but others may not see it that way, since exposure to it often
puts religious ideas up to question, and so it may impinge upon them in
that way. In that case, it is not my religion to defend, but theirs to
resist, which I have already stated is their right. Religion is secularly
defined in my Glossary, a
free download
The father of our
current president, George Dubya (Whoppers) Bush, expressed shortly after
he first became "elected", that freedom from religion is not a fundamental
personal right, that atheists are not patriotic nor entitled to
citizenship. His agenda, and his reason for saying that, is to diminish
the separation of church and state by using federal funds to help finance
what he calls faith-based education.
Beyond my personal
notion that institutions which benefit from federal funds should also be
subject to taxes (investment with expectations of payback), I would advise
any 'faith-based' school systems to be wary of doles offered from any
governmental bodies because of what that implies: If we are not to end up
financing fanaticism and terrorist groups, restrictions will have to be
imposed upon those who would seek such funds. Any restrictions to be
imposed will be used as a base for competitors to petition for loopholes
for themselves, and greater impositions against those whose ideas they'd
devalue.
In the past, this kind
of activity has been accomplished by their seeking of positions within the
agencies in charge. While the requirements may at first seem innocuous,
not more than a couple of decades would see heavy governmental involvement
in those schools' curriculums, and some of them modifying old teachings in
order to stay in compliance, just as states now shed some of their
constitutional rights to remain on the federal dole.
Moreover, I highly
suspect, as should you, the higher quality of education claimed for
those schools might occur exactly because of absence of (absence from)
governmental involvement.
I disagree heartily with
the president's statement, and feel concerned about it because it offers
insights as to the dangerous nature of the mentality passed down to his
man child. We must remain free as we can of and from all forms of
harassment and oppression.
Our government was
founded on a principle known as
hedonism: the pursuit of happiness (pleasure). We cannot claim our
government is a Christian government because it definitely is not; Xianity
despises hedonism and hedonists despise Xianity; its very nature violates
all sorts of Christian standards and doctrines. It is just as ridiculous
to claim that as it would be for Muslims to proclaim it to be Islamic. Who
would they be kidding, other than themselves? If we are truly to claim we
have religious freedom, it must be a government that represents all
of its citizens.
We have lost our way in
America, and strayed even from the field upon which our country was
founded. Those who fight for such things as ritualized prayer in schools
must be made to realize our freedom requires that, if prayer be required,
then time must be made available for the saying of every kind of prayer,
and that I, as an atheist, must be granted a hall and means to implore
students to listen to my common sense, natural fundamentals.
If religious slogans and
posters are allowed to be posted in public-owned places, then their
equivalents in all other religions must also be posted beside them.
If the Ten Commandments
(what's wrong with the other 603 commandments that's NOT wrong with
these?) are allowed to be posted on government property, the 2-commandment
Christian version and the truncated 10-commandment Jewish version
must accompany the truncated 10-commandment Catholic version (the one
usually displayed, sort of), and room made for displays of all other
faiths' equivalents, including the too-overlooked secular
commandments of Solon.
If religious doctrines
are to be taught in classrooms, then the equivalent doctrines of all
religions must also be taught, as well as the
principles of atheism
and, if science has its own
ideas, those must also be fully and positively addressed. "Our schools are
there to impart knowledge we can use for making up our own minds, not to
indoctrinate us," we said.
A new move to post the
Ten Commandments as 'historical documents' seems to have failed in most
cases. Where that succeeded, we should also move to post Grimm's Fairy
Tales and Doctor Seuss. Those are from similar origins, and more actually
historical, since the authors are known.
Constitutionality aside
(and, I think that argument distracts us from our real concerns), a large
portion of our concern for keeping church and state separated is with
fanaticism, which we find hard to define in unquestionable terms, but can
foresee its results as being like those from which we are now
*claiming to rescue
Afghanistan and the Middle East.
The biggest problem with
arriving at an agreeable definition involves drawing lines between what
must be considered insanity, fanaticism, and simple religion. Most people
seem to associate fanaticism with weapons and terror, but seem to
recognize it when a weaponless fanatical person's persuasions do not gibe
at all with reality. A few of us can recognize that the common, simple
religion of a hundred years ago is the fanaticism of today. I have heard
and read that all religion is insanity and fanaticism; my own idea of
religion, as I expressed in
Reality 101 (ISBN: 0-595-21834-2), is that it is the basic,
imprinted guidance system each of us variously possessesand, that the
religion each of us (including the president) seeks freedom from, is other
peoples'.
Fanaticism does not
require religion to function. You are walking along with your preacher
friend, and you come upon somebody whose smile seems endless. You inquire,
"What's making you smile?"
"My religion makes me
feel happy," he answers, and your preacher friend writes his name in a
little address book he uses for keeping track of people who might share
his thoughts on things.
Your next stop is inside
a large concrete building whose inhabitants have just been involved in a
massive brawl. Tire irons, wrenches, hammers are flung around where they
were dropped during the fight. Half of the inmates are sitting at tables
when you walk in, studying, eating, angry expressions on their faces. The
other half are lolling about looking dazed, half-conscious, their lips
curled up in a grin of stupefaction. The preacher takes a quick look, gets
his little black book out, and begins copying names down from tags worn on
their pockets.
"Wait a minute," you
say, "these guys aren't religious, they've been in a fight. That's why
they wear such goofy grins."
"So?" he asks, frowning
at you.
"So, they're not
smiling, they've just been knocked cuckoo. Look at the evidence."
"What evidence?" he
inquires, irked.
"Look at the bruises on
their heads and arms, and the tools scattered all around where they've
been dropped."
He looks. "That's not
evidence," he says, and insists that you leave him alone while he finishes
gathering names.
So, who's the fanatic
here: You, who looked at the tools and bruises for evidence?or the
preacher, who only needed a smile to recognize the dazed expression most
religious people wear?
Updated:
04/10/2008
|Not convinced?|
Read some More
|
