On the Hawking Mission
From Science Daily: Jan 2010;
"Our lives here on Earth -- in fact, everything we see and know about the universe around us -- depend on a precise set of conditions that makes us possible," (Alejandro) Jenkins said. "For example, if the fundamental forces that shape matter in our universe were altered even slightly, it's conceivable that atoms never would have formed, or that the element carbon, which is considered a basic building block of life as we know it, wouldn't exist. So how is it that such a perfect balance exists? Some would attribute it to God, but of course, that is outside the realm of physics."
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From "Multiverse" - Wikipedia Article:
The concept of other universes has been proposed to explain why our universe seems to be fine-tuned for conscious life as we experience it. If there were a large number (possibly infinite) of different physical laws (or fundamental constants) in as many universes, some of these would have laws that were suitable for stars, planets and life to exist. The weak anthropic principle could then be applied to conclude that we would only consciously exist in those universes, which were finely tuned for our conscious existence. Thus, while the probability might be extremely small that there is life in most of the universes, this scarcity of life-supporting universes does not imply intelligent design as the only explanation of our existence.
************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
From The Bible:
Luk 19:39-40 And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples. (40) And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
The worst part of the new Stephen Hawking (with Leonard Mlodinow) book, The Grand Design, is how the media has focused on its implications regarding God creating (or not creating) the universe. The book is about far more than that and although this misdirection may have served to stimulate sales, it has also generated a vicious breed of responses that attack the man for his (apparent) lack of belief. This in spite of the fact that Stephen Hawking has not denied the existence of God. Yet. What follows is a brief discussion of the background science to put the book in context and prepare for a later review once I finish it. I would advise anyone undertaking a read of The Grand Design to familiarize yourself with the language of quantum analysis before and during the read. A simple internet search of related topics would help. As technical as this work is, Mr. Hawking goes a long way to make it readable. However, it does get difficult as he gets closer to the main topic.
The book is well written and follows the course of science from the work of Thales (c. 500 b.c.e) all the way to that of quantum physicists of today. Hawking prepares us for his drawn conclusions by reviewing the progress of scientific thinking re. The Universe and explaining as best as he can, the unexplainable science of quantum mechanics which does breach the border of communicability. I can't say that I understand it, but it is certainly not the work of one man. The contributing scientists mostly concur, but offer variations on existing themes. This is real science, not speculated inference; not an attack on religion, not peripheral enough to be ignored by the scientific community.
It would be great if people simply try to read the book instead of pre-establishing mental blocks raised by the focus of the media on what is one very small aspect of this work. Science has ALWAYS changed the course of religion, so it should come as no surprise that established religious concepts are being unearthed and overturned by this new direction in scientific thinking. To be fair, Hinduism, Islam, and even the Bible have referred to other worlds, successive levels of heavens, and other universes which could indicate an ancient speculation regarding the nature of that which is NOT seen. Mysticism would have no issue with multiple universes as long as there remains a place for the supernatural element. Religions are not without their trends and tendencies to look beyond the dogmas that entrap the freedom of consciousness to explore without restraint. As free as these forays may seem, they still remain tethered to the supremacy of a singular supernatural being and prove that no matter what happens in science, religion will find a way to rescue the deity even if it means changing the dogma.
Science, unlike religion, is not "answer driven". In this case, the idea of a universe of values seemingly fine-tuned for life got a lot of attention from the Intelligent Design sector. They took this information and flew with it, thinking it had confirmed the answer that corresponds with faith. Science, being impersonal, continued to investigate the idea of fine-tuning while some scientists, being human, drew conclusions. Multiverse theory is coming into its own as the cutting edge of Quantum Physics. The short story is that there could be universes with different measurements that either forbid life, or allow for a different kind of life. This idea is based on observations and the quality of measurement involved. Remember... we are now probing into the area of quantum dynamics where anything is possible. It is a world of discovery; of exploration.
Consider this analogy: The sailors from the Old World sought a passage to the east by sailing west. They discovered the new world (the Americas) but guided by ANSWER-driven thinking, they drew conclusions and named the people of the new world "Indians", thinking they had discovered India. Fortunately, the science continued and the Pacific Ocean was discovered years later, indicating that the New World was just that. A New World. As long as scientists, who are human, are apt to jump to conclusions, the progress of science is slowed, but not stopped. Where Stephen Hawking is going with this new direction is towards a kind of thinking, based on quantum observation as opposed to Newtonian specifications that describe static states. Quantum measurements describe probabilities and treat all of them as validly existing. Again, this is based on observation such as the split-screen experiment which demonstrates the validity of all states of a quantum system even though only one state appears when measured.
This is very new and highly counter-intuitive at the moment. So too, was the transition from flat earth thinking to round; from earth at the center of the universe to earth revolving around the sun; from the sun being at the center to the sun being located at the edge of a large galaxy of 400,000,000,000 stars in a universe of over 100,000,000,000 such galaxies; from the universe existing as a steady state to a universe evolving from a small point of energy. The transitions brought by scientific investigation are profound. They are not based on religious ideation or hasty conclusions. They are Just observations and models/theories that explain those observations. As hard as it is now to conceive these new ideas, just think of people 5,000 years ago trying to conceive the simple idea of a round earth. Eventually the science does break through into the religious realm and change happens.
Right now, religion is scoffing at Hawking and others who are suggesting that not only could there be as much as (10 to the power of 500) universes "out there" but that a supernatural creator would not be necessary to create them. This thinking either takes God out of the equation OR finds a newer and far more profound area where God might be more significant than any theologian has yet to consider. Being itself could be the ultimate reality with physical universes being simply a consequence of energy which is impersonal. Our life within this existence may be an unfolding of BEING, which, for the religious, could have meaning beyond the scope of "creation". What all this really means is that the Hawking mission does not have to stand in opposition to the existence of God, just in opposition to antiquated concepts of reality.
10^500 is a HUGE number! That’s a 1 with 500 zeros after it. It's virtually infinite. UNIVERSES we're talking. Not stars. Not galaxies... UNIVERSES; All originating out of NOTHING. Self-generated; Some with life, Perhaps many without life. What theists will do, as theism resists any change that will render it obsolete, is find a God that fits that picture. See... God cannot be disproved because God did not come empirical observations... just speculations based on the unknown. These speculations found their way into the literary category of mythology where they found life as religion.
As long as it's ok for speculations based on the unknown to count for answers, God will persist in the mind of humanity. It has been said that science at this profoundly theoretical level is just as vague if not more so, as religion. BUT, the key difference is OBSERVATION. Basic unbiased observing leading to models which explain the results. These models have to explain the past/present and predict the future before a wide range of scientists accepts them. From that point on, there is no need to cut heads off or ostracize, threaten or ply with guilt trips to keep these theories in play. All that is necessary is for ONE MODEL to present a result not supported by a current theory.
So... in the spirit of ongoing discovery, I have selected part of an article from Science Daily by Alejandro Jenkins regarding the Multiverse theory. Multiverse explains a mystery regarding the nature of measurement on the quantum level and is the result of the kind of thinking and experimentation that has been going on throughout the late 19th throughout 20th century. Hawking is just reporting on the accumulated wisdom of scientists-physicists like Richard Feynman, Gell-Mann, Heisenberg, Einstein, et. al. as they have articulated what is a very new and radical area of science... the quantum. It's about what happens at very small levels where Newtonian physics breaks down. It takes an open mind to deal with it.
Religious minds have value, but impede the progress of science by prioritizing the significance of religion.. Despite the obvious fact that religion has NEVER gotten it right about the nature of the universe, it continues to try to "guide" science... to limit the scope of science. Religion continues to try to artificially establish itself as primary in the area of knowledge about our experience here. Religion uses pseudoscience to de-mystify creation mythology, and succeeds because so many people in the world do not understand the raw, unbiased simplicity of real science. Religion has better business to attend to than opposing the work of science just because it casts doubt on dogma. Religion would be well advised to attend to uplifting dampened spirits, restoring hope, rescuing lost souls, promoting unconditional love and giving people quality options with which to manage their weekends.
Across the Multiverse: Physicist Considers the Big Picture
Science Daily (Jan. 13, 2010) — Is there anybody out there? In Alejandro Jenkins' case, the question refers not to whether life exists elsewhere in the universe, but whether it exists in other universes outside of our own.
The theory of "cosmic inflation," which was developed in the 1980s in order to solve certain puzzles about the structure of our universe, predicts that ours is just one of countless universes to emerge from the same primordial vacuum. We have no way of seeing those other universes, although many of the other predictions of cosmic inflation have recently been corroborated by astrophysical measurements.
Given some of science's current ideas about high-energy physics, it is plausible that those other universes might each have different physical interactions. So perhaps it's no mystery that we would happen to occupy the rare universe in which conditions are just right to make life possible. This is analogous to how, out of the many planets in our universe, we occupy the rare one where conditions are right for organic evolution.
"What theorists like Dr. Perez and I do is tweak the calculations of the fundamental forces in order to predict the resulting effects on possible, alternative universes," Jenkins said. "Some of these results are easy to predict; for example, if there was no electromagnetic force, there would be no atoms and no chemical bonds. And without gravity, matter wouldn't coalesce into planets, stars and galaxies.
"What is surprising about our results is that we found conditions that, while very different from those of our own universe, nevertheless might allow -- again, at least hypothetically -- for the existence of life. (What that life would look like is another story entirely.) This actually brings into question the usefulness of the anthropic principle when applied to particle physics, and might force us to think more carefully about what the multiverse would actually contain."
So while people who are dedicated to remaining true to God, cling to religious constructs, even manipulating the scientific method to support unsupportable notions, science itself, cold and impersonal, moves on. Where it goes, eventually religion will have to follow just as it has followed from day one. Truth is self-evident. You just can't wish it away.
I am "only" 50% into Hawking's, The Grand Design. Comments I have received from friends regarding his physical condition contributing to the rebellious attitude of his thinking would not apply to the many concurring scientists who are physically able and healthy. They not only agree with him, but have provided much of the preparatory thinking even before Hawking was born.
The tendency to speculate on his physical condition in an attempt to discredit him is typical of religious defensiveness and the main reason why I continue to reprimand those who would stifle intellectual growth in the name of preserving tradition. Silence one voice for reasons irrelevant... Silence them all maybe, but in the end, the stones themselves cry out....
Robert W. Hamilton
9-18-2010
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Tiger Woods: Who Cares?
Tiger Woods’ performance on National TV “apologizing” for his errant behavior off tee was pathetic, self-serving, morally indulgent and a sad failure to mirror the mastery of African-American oratory. With his wealth and fame, you would think he could at least have gotten a coaching session from Barack Obama. It’s hard to watch the psychological meltdown of a great American athlete who should be using his golfing skills to restore his right to the living rooms of human beings across the nation and around the world. I wish Tiger Woods would leave his senseless guilt purging to a confession booth and get back to playing the game that made us care about him in the first place.
The absence of his wife at his side made the entire performance insincere from the start. “Fake” as Steven A. Smith put it. A man confessing his sins before a sinful public is now prime-time TV? Entertainment? Get real Tiger! Now what do we expect? A complete revision of his moral worth so that we can watch him play golf without fearing a strike of lightening that could endanger the lives of his followers and playing partners? Just because Barack Obama talked himself into being elected president doesn’t mean Tiger Woods is going to talk himself into being the moral angel we all thought he was, who just happens to have a good golf game.
What a tragic waste of quality TV time. What a sad display of self-righteous theater bent on renewing an image forever tarnished by acts of human nature that offend many who still believe in the sanctity of marriage but again, has nothing to do with whether or not he can win a Golf Major. Tiger Woods needs to just grow up and get over what he did and did with intention and great pleasure. He fooled around. He didn’t kill anyone. He certainly didn’t offend MY moral sensitivities, nor should I be a party to what should be a personal interaction within his family and whatever spiritual center he professes to believe in. Tiger Woods asks for all to leave his family alone and this unsolicited exposure to his inner being is the way to go about it?
I am left to believe the only thing Tiger Woods’ is interested in is his bank account. This tearless tirade of pathos was intended only to rescue an image of purity that has made him billions of dollars. He’s already lost significant sponsorship in a commercial world that markets anything of value to anyone who can pay yet has the audacity to demand moral perfection of the Tiger Woods’ Michael Jacksons and Kobe Bryants that help advertise their products. Afraid he may sink into the economic quagmire of garden variety millionaire-hood, Tiger is on a ridiculously ill-advised mission to save his billions and remain the man his trophy wife married. Perhaps he’s making sure her legal savvy won’t suddenly improve in the coming days and months to where she could take a more mercenary view of his multiple counts of adultery.
Instead of concentrating on a golf hole a few inches in depth, Tiger Woods is opening a hole large enough to build a bomb shelter in. Just like Pinocchio’s nose, the hole gets bigger the more he stands before the cameras of global TV and preaches his absolution. Where are his high-paid lawyers right now? Where is the chorus of “SHUT UP, TIGER??”. Where are his golf clubs? Did Elin break every single one of them trying to knock some sense into his head? I should hope I won’t need therapy to erase this emasculated image of self – pity from my head as I wait endlessly for Tiger Woods to return to the TEE. That is the only platform upon which world opinion is going to take shape; the only venue upon which the global corporate world is going to make endorsement contract decisions.
Hopefully, before the end of the world in 2012, the re-runs of Tiger’s regretful performance will cease. Perhaps eventually we can get back to the real world of professional athletics where flawed personal lives are eclipsed by the skills of the game. What truly matters in a world that eye-winks moralism is the intrigue of larger-than-life athletic heroes who receive their just reward in money, not absolution of sin. Let’s withhold any further judgment of Tiger’s marital offenses and pray for the day he returns to the TEE. A true performance by a great golfer is one that we shouldn’t want to change the channel on. It’s too bad the Supreme Court can’t put a gag order on any TV station to prevent re-airing this pitiful episode of poor judgment. Instead it’s going to play and play and play until those still watching will wonder who is Tiger Woods and why does anyone care?
Robert Hamilton 2-20-2010
The absence of his wife at his side made the entire performance insincere from the start. “Fake” as Steven A. Smith put it. A man confessing his sins before a sinful public is now prime-time TV? Entertainment? Get real Tiger! Now what do we expect? A complete revision of his moral worth so that we can watch him play golf without fearing a strike of lightening that could endanger the lives of his followers and playing partners? Just because Barack Obama talked himself into being elected president doesn’t mean Tiger Woods is going to talk himself into being the moral angel we all thought he was, who just happens to have a good golf game.
What a tragic waste of quality TV time. What a sad display of self-righteous theater bent on renewing an image forever tarnished by acts of human nature that offend many who still believe in the sanctity of marriage but again, has nothing to do with whether or not he can win a Golf Major. Tiger Woods needs to just grow up and get over what he did and did with intention and great pleasure. He fooled around. He didn’t kill anyone. He certainly didn’t offend MY moral sensitivities, nor should I be a party to what should be a personal interaction within his family and whatever spiritual center he professes to believe in. Tiger Woods asks for all to leave his family alone and this unsolicited exposure to his inner being is the way to go about it?
I am left to believe the only thing Tiger Woods’ is interested in is his bank account. This tearless tirade of pathos was intended only to rescue an image of purity that has made him billions of dollars. He’s already lost significant sponsorship in a commercial world that markets anything of value to anyone who can pay yet has the audacity to demand moral perfection of the Tiger Woods’ Michael Jacksons and Kobe Bryants that help advertise their products. Afraid he may sink into the economic quagmire of garden variety millionaire-hood, Tiger is on a ridiculously ill-advised mission to save his billions and remain the man his trophy wife married. Perhaps he’s making sure her legal savvy won’t suddenly improve in the coming days and months to where she could take a more mercenary view of his multiple counts of adultery.
Instead of concentrating on a golf hole a few inches in depth, Tiger Woods is opening a hole large enough to build a bomb shelter in. Just like Pinocchio’s nose, the hole gets bigger the more he stands before the cameras of global TV and preaches his absolution. Where are his high-paid lawyers right now? Where is the chorus of “SHUT UP, TIGER??”. Where are his golf clubs? Did Elin break every single one of them trying to knock some sense into his head? I should hope I won’t need therapy to erase this emasculated image of self – pity from my head as I wait endlessly for Tiger Woods to return to the TEE. That is the only platform upon which world opinion is going to take shape; the only venue upon which the global corporate world is going to make endorsement contract decisions.
Hopefully, before the end of the world in 2012, the re-runs of Tiger’s regretful performance will cease. Perhaps eventually we can get back to the real world of professional athletics where flawed personal lives are eclipsed by the skills of the game. What truly matters in a world that eye-winks moralism is the intrigue of larger-than-life athletic heroes who receive their just reward in money, not absolution of sin. Let’s withhold any further judgment of Tiger’s marital offenses and pray for the day he returns to the TEE. A true performance by a great golfer is one that we shouldn’t want to change the channel on. It’s too bad the Supreme Court can’t put a gag order on any TV station to prevent re-airing this pitiful episode of poor judgment. Instead it’s going to play and play and play until those still watching will wonder who is Tiger Woods and why does anyone care?
Robert Hamilton 2-20-2010
Friday, October 9, 2009
The Nobel Obama: Triumph of Symbol
Barack Obama won a historical election in November 2008. He captured the presidency of the most powerful nation on earth and arguably throughout history. Prudence demanded an avoidance of the race card during the campaign although it did manage to surface here and there despite efforts to suppress. When victory was achieved however, racially charged celebrations broke out across the nation and around the world. The party seemed never to end. Blacks and non-whites danced in the streets from Harlem to Kenya. “Yes We Can” became “Yes We Did” and for a prolonged moment in time, the hope of all people who are not white radiated with a powerful energy which has yet to dissipate.
Now Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize and many people, including myself ask “for what”? I supported and continue to support this president but do find his major accomplishments more a thing of the future than the near past. Still I have to sit back and give the folks in Sweden the benefit of the doubt. I have to assume they are intelligent and above corruption. This prestigious award is one of the most coveted, respected honors a human being can attain. Since there is no immediate issue presenting itself to account for this award, one has to seek deeper into the mystique of the Obama victory to discover reasons why this exalted community chose this man for the prize.
Avoiding the race card in this past election had the effect of obscuring the elephant in the victory (no pun). My initial thoughts regarding the celebratory reactions around the world had to do with the irony of ignoring the race of the man while he was running, but exalting it after his victory. The celebrations made no effort to camouflage the obvious. A black man had been elected president and for this reason alone there was cause to be hysterically jubilant. The media coverage displayed a wild party atmosphere going on in African–American communities around the nation, seasoned with like celebrations throughout Africa and the world as non-whites met this momentous occasion with an outpouring of unbridled joy.
The tumult was not fueled by a sudden realization that health care was coming to all, that peace was imminent in the Middle East, or that the economic recession was soon to end. The reaction was largely non-substantive, reveling mainly in the sole realization that for the first time in history the least likely of ethnic peoples was being represented first-hand in the White House. It was a dance of symbolism; a time of reference; an advance of the Civil Rights movement. It was everything but specific; a border-less passion set free as though confined throughout the entire spectrum of human history.
This victory inspired hope and energized the human spirit all over the world. It signaled the end to a human history of white people being in charge of everything powerful and economically significant. True, the idea held more symbolism than reality for the power structure rarely changes that much over the election of one president. Additionally, the election of a black man does not, did not, nor will not disenfranchise the power of the white man in politics or economic leverage. Despite the implications behind the presidential victory of a black man, racism, institutionalized in America and around the world continues to recede ever so slowly from the human landscape.
Barack Obama is an embattled president whose detractors will not rest until he is a loser in 2012. Nothing Mr. Obama does seems to meet with the approval of those who oppose him and seek his failure at any cost. The opposition media will misinterpret, twist and skew Obama’s words and acts no matter what it is he says or does. His trip to Denmark to win the Olympics for Chicago was win/win/, lose/lose, depending on who you ask.
When an aging, but still highly intelligent former president called attention to obvious racist attacks on Barack Obama from the opposition, Fox News immediately interpreted the remarks as referring to every attack on Barack Obama. Glenn Beck smirked and joked about being a racist just because you oppose Barack Obama. The tide of misinformation regarding President Carter’s remarks sought to ridicule the former president and deny any racism at all in the relentless drive to invalidate, devalue, criticize and deflate the presidency which in November, 2008 brought pure ecstasy to the majority of the world’s population.
Enter the Nobel Peace Committee. What this community has observed is that the election of Barack Obama was a significant inspiration to people all over the world, black and yes, white. It was a symbolic moment in human history that validated all people of color and demonstrated that indeed, you didn’t have to be white to count in this world. Symbols often carry more meaning that reality. Our faiths are built on symbols and non-literal meanings. Who would argue that faith does not impact the human experience in a great way, whether good or bad? The Nobel community has decided that symbol in the elevation of Barack Obama to the presidency of the USA is more important than the persistent devil trying to take command of the details. The opposition has been more than marginally successful in portraying Barack Obama as a failure and disappointment so far. The euphoria of November has abated in the wake of reactionary activity aimed solely at destroying the victory of 2008 with an unseating of Barack Obama in 2012.
My understanding of this award centers on the victory of Barack Obama as being sufficient enough to ignite and inspire the world to move towards peace and international cooperation. The momentum may be mired in a sea of impatience and dearth of accomplishments, but the victory nonetheless was significant for the very reason that race card-avoiders are reluctant to admit. It was the emergence of the Black and non white masses onto the open stage of power-sharing and the validation of all people around the world no matter their color or heritage. The Nobel Prize was the triumph of symbol; the celebration of spirit and the acknowledgment that faith in its purest form is still a potent and valuable motivator in the human experience.
President Obama wisely accepted this award in a diminutive tone, understanding that its raison d’être had less to do with substance than pure potential. It is an appropriate salute to the forces behind the fury of November 2008; a thank you to a man whose tireless effort and strong will took him through a hard-fought election where more than politics was at stake. Far more, for now it is at least a dream-able dream that the world’s people will seek to unite in a search for peace, even as wars continue to be fought more over principle than substance. I congratulate not Barack Obama, but the Nobel Committee for seeing through the camouflage and recognizing the president’s victory for what it truly was.
Robert W Hamilton: 2012: It's never too soon.
Now Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize and many people, including myself ask “for what”? I supported and continue to support this president but do find his major accomplishments more a thing of the future than the near past. Still I have to sit back and give the folks in Sweden the benefit of the doubt. I have to assume they are intelligent and above corruption. This prestigious award is one of the most coveted, respected honors a human being can attain. Since there is no immediate issue presenting itself to account for this award, one has to seek deeper into the mystique of the Obama victory to discover reasons why this exalted community chose this man for the prize.
Avoiding the race card in this past election had the effect of obscuring the elephant in the victory (no pun). My initial thoughts regarding the celebratory reactions around the world had to do with the irony of ignoring the race of the man while he was running, but exalting it after his victory. The celebrations made no effort to camouflage the obvious. A black man had been elected president and for this reason alone there was cause to be hysterically jubilant. The media coverage displayed a wild party atmosphere going on in African–American communities around the nation, seasoned with like celebrations throughout Africa and the world as non-whites met this momentous occasion with an outpouring of unbridled joy.
The tumult was not fueled by a sudden realization that health care was coming to all, that peace was imminent in the Middle East, or that the economic recession was soon to end. The reaction was largely non-substantive, reveling mainly in the sole realization that for the first time in history the least likely of ethnic peoples was being represented first-hand in the White House. It was a dance of symbolism; a time of reference; an advance of the Civil Rights movement. It was everything but specific; a border-less passion set free as though confined throughout the entire spectrum of human history.
This victory inspired hope and energized the human spirit all over the world. It signaled the end to a human history of white people being in charge of everything powerful and economically significant. True, the idea held more symbolism than reality for the power structure rarely changes that much over the election of one president. Additionally, the election of a black man does not, did not, nor will not disenfranchise the power of the white man in politics or economic leverage. Despite the implications behind the presidential victory of a black man, racism, institutionalized in America and around the world continues to recede ever so slowly from the human landscape.
Barack Obama is an embattled president whose detractors will not rest until he is a loser in 2012. Nothing Mr. Obama does seems to meet with the approval of those who oppose him and seek his failure at any cost. The opposition media will misinterpret, twist and skew Obama’s words and acts no matter what it is he says or does. His trip to Denmark to win the Olympics for Chicago was win/win/, lose/lose, depending on who you ask.
When an aging, but still highly intelligent former president called attention to obvious racist attacks on Barack Obama from the opposition, Fox News immediately interpreted the remarks as referring to every attack on Barack Obama. Glenn Beck smirked and joked about being a racist just because you oppose Barack Obama. The tide of misinformation regarding President Carter’s remarks sought to ridicule the former president and deny any racism at all in the relentless drive to invalidate, devalue, criticize and deflate the presidency which in November, 2008 brought pure ecstasy to the majority of the world’s population.
Enter the Nobel Peace Committee. What this community has observed is that the election of Barack Obama was a significant inspiration to people all over the world, black and yes, white. It was a symbolic moment in human history that validated all people of color and demonstrated that indeed, you didn’t have to be white to count in this world. Symbols often carry more meaning that reality. Our faiths are built on symbols and non-literal meanings. Who would argue that faith does not impact the human experience in a great way, whether good or bad? The Nobel community has decided that symbol in the elevation of Barack Obama to the presidency of the USA is more important than the persistent devil trying to take command of the details. The opposition has been more than marginally successful in portraying Barack Obama as a failure and disappointment so far. The euphoria of November has abated in the wake of reactionary activity aimed solely at destroying the victory of 2008 with an unseating of Barack Obama in 2012.
My understanding of this award centers on the victory of Barack Obama as being sufficient enough to ignite and inspire the world to move towards peace and international cooperation. The momentum may be mired in a sea of impatience and dearth of accomplishments, but the victory nonetheless was significant for the very reason that race card-avoiders are reluctant to admit. It was the emergence of the Black and non white masses onto the open stage of power-sharing and the validation of all people around the world no matter their color or heritage. The Nobel Prize was the triumph of symbol; the celebration of spirit and the acknowledgment that faith in its purest form is still a potent and valuable motivator in the human experience.
President Obama wisely accepted this award in a diminutive tone, understanding that its raison d’être had less to do with substance than pure potential. It is an appropriate salute to the forces behind the fury of November 2008; a thank you to a man whose tireless effort and strong will took him through a hard-fought election where more than politics was at stake. Far more, for now it is at least a dream-able dream that the world’s people will seek to unite in a search for peace, even as wars continue to be fought more over principle than substance. I congratulate not Barack Obama, but the Nobel Committee for seeing through the camouflage and recognizing the president’s victory for what it truly was.
Robert W Hamilton: 2012: It's never too soon.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
The Mission against Hamas
Once again, as in the removal of Saddam Hussein, the US, now through its client state Israel is doing the dirty work for the Arab world. Cooler heads in the Arabian group of sovereign states did not like Saddam Hussein and no matter how much they huffed and puffed during Bush's campaign against the Saddam regime, filled with blood and death, notice they did nothing about it. Not so much as turn off the oil which they usually do when they want to underscore a point.
Notice how little beyond talk they are doing against the Israeli advance on Gaza. This is because they simply don't like Hamas. Nobody does. They tolerate Hamas, but this group of armed thugs is seeking legitimacy among world elite and they just don't rate. Not even Hezbollah is retaliating with rocket fire or cross border attacks while Israel is clearly extending its resources to the southwest.
Iran has spoken sharply against the attacks, but does little more than continue to get rockets and munitions into Gaza through their sponsors in the game. Again, the oil flows freely and the US continues to broker deals with peace-loving, wealthy Arab states such as Oman, with whom the United States has just embarked on a Free Trade Agreement. The "infidel"; the "Great Satan", continues to warm the hearts of Islamic moderates who see with a greater vision. Even Iran faced with a friend in Iraq rather than a mortal enemy, has seen the value of cooperation with the US elephant in the room. Kuwait is largely silent on the issue. Go figure.
By taking out Hamas, the US-sponsored State of Israel is helping to clear the way for a more honest relationship with Mahmoud Abbas who himself is reduced to lip service support of the poor Gazans dying and being injured in this calamitous response to a few rockets fired on a small town in the southwest. The Arab world stands to gain from the elimination of the roguish Hamas who killed their own people to get where they are. They ran the president out of Gaza and will kill him in the West Bank first chance they get.
Given what they want, which is an open border with Israel and the end of the sea/air blockade, along with full access to an open border with Egypt, they will merely step up their violent campaign against Israel with more rockets and missiles. They will undoubtedly import anti-aircraft weaponry and tanks, etc. to protect against further Israeli incursion as well as beef up their coming war against Abbas in the West Bank. Hamas is contending with Hezbollah for dominance in militant ideology and Hezbollah won't sit still for an enhanced Hamas. These groups do not act in concert any more than their unified anti-Israel rhetoric virtually quited with the embarrassing defeat of Hezbollah during the Lebanon offensive.
Amidst all the talk and rhetoric against the Gaza campaign, there is no action. Israel is bombing, killing, razing and disrupting with impunity. They are taking out Mosques at will. Where is the hard-core Arab response? Where are the warplanes of Syria and Jordan? Where are the Israelis getting the Jet fuel for their planes, gasoline for their ground vehicles? The last I checked, Israel has no oil fields in the Middle East.
Turning off the oil would go a long way to weaken the United States and hamper the flow of energy into the Israeli war machine. The US and the west could take military action against Israel without firing a shot. They could turn off the money. The disproportionate response to a few rockets fired is clear indication of a greater mission; greater, meaning beyond the borders of Israel. The entire world wants to see an end to the Hamas regime, but most will not admit to that. Just as in the Iraq invasion which fed right into the political will of the Shiite majority, Iran, and everyone else in the region who hated Saddam, the Arab world is screaming bloody murder with their fingers crossed behind their backs.
An end to Hamas means greater support for Abbas who has agreed to play the game leading to a two-state solution. An Israeli incursion into Gaza means an eventual armed presence for the UN and Arab militaries while Gaza gets rebuilt with money sucked in from American coffers. It means the return of Abbas and Fatah to Gaza at a time when the people there will be more interested in reparations, food and medical resources and breathing space in a post-Hamas atmosphere.
The Arab States have no choice but to cooperate with this “Infidel"; this “Great Satan” who is their only venue for full arrival in the first world. They continue to let the oil flow when turning it off would be a loud cry of support for Hamas. They get to continue selling their essential product at a time when turning it off would hurt an already endangered economy. They get to pour their resources into a Fatah-controlled Gaza without worrying about sponsoring a militarist regime whose only goal is the elimination of Israel.
The Arab world of cool heads and reasoned thinkers is silently praying for an Israeli victory which will come at the expense of (more) hatred for the US, not them for their inaction. This is what they want and this is why the Israelis are acting with impunity on the weak premise of responding to rocket fire which does little more than terrorize and annoy the citizens of a small town in Southwest Israel. If it was about the rockets, then why not use the advanced technology of surgical strikes with drones to take out the rocket stashes wherever they may be found?
This is about a much larger picture; ending the reign of Hamas and returning to the peace talks with Mahmoud Abbas speaking singularly for the Palestinians with the blessings of the Arab community. Harsh as it sounds, the only route to peace is through the collapse of Hamas and all other ad-hoc militarist groups seeking to eliminate Israel rather than make peace.
RWH 1-4-2009
Notice how little beyond talk they are doing against the Israeli advance on Gaza. This is because they simply don't like Hamas. Nobody does. They tolerate Hamas, but this group of armed thugs is seeking legitimacy among world elite and they just don't rate. Not even Hezbollah is retaliating with rocket fire or cross border attacks while Israel is clearly extending its resources to the southwest.
Iran has spoken sharply against the attacks, but does little more than continue to get rockets and munitions into Gaza through their sponsors in the game. Again, the oil flows freely and the US continues to broker deals with peace-loving, wealthy Arab states such as Oman, with whom the United States has just embarked on a Free Trade Agreement. The "infidel"; the "Great Satan", continues to warm the hearts of Islamic moderates who see with a greater vision. Even Iran faced with a friend in Iraq rather than a mortal enemy, has seen the value of cooperation with the US elephant in the room. Kuwait is largely silent on the issue. Go figure.
By taking out Hamas, the US-sponsored State of Israel is helping to clear the way for a more honest relationship with Mahmoud Abbas who himself is reduced to lip service support of the poor Gazans dying and being injured in this calamitous response to a few rockets fired on a small town in the southwest. The Arab world stands to gain from the elimination of the roguish Hamas who killed their own people to get where they are. They ran the president out of Gaza and will kill him in the West Bank first chance they get.
Given what they want, which is an open border with Israel and the end of the sea/air blockade, along with full access to an open border with Egypt, they will merely step up their violent campaign against Israel with more rockets and missiles. They will undoubtedly import anti-aircraft weaponry and tanks, etc. to protect against further Israeli incursion as well as beef up their coming war against Abbas in the West Bank. Hamas is contending with Hezbollah for dominance in militant ideology and Hezbollah won't sit still for an enhanced Hamas. These groups do not act in concert any more than their unified anti-Israel rhetoric virtually quited with the embarrassing defeat of Hezbollah during the Lebanon offensive.
Amidst all the talk and rhetoric against the Gaza campaign, there is no action. Israel is bombing, killing, razing and disrupting with impunity. They are taking out Mosques at will. Where is the hard-core Arab response? Where are the warplanes of Syria and Jordan? Where are the Israelis getting the Jet fuel for their planes, gasoline for their ground vehicles? The last I checked, Israel has no oil fields in the Middle East.
Turning off the oil would go a long way to weaken the United States and hamper the flow of energy into the Israeli war machine. The US and the west could take military action against Israel without firing a shot. They could turn off the money. The disproportionate response to a few rockets fired is clear indication of a greater mission; greater, meaning beyond the borders of Israel. The entire world wants to see an end to the Hamas regime, but most will not admit to that. Just as in the Iraq invasion which fed right into the political will of the Shiite majority, Iran, and everyone else in the region who hated Saddam, the Arab world is screaming bloody murder with their fingers crossed behind their backs.
An end to Hamas means greater support for Abbas who has agreed to play the game leading to a two-state solution. An Israeli incursion into Gaza means an eventual armed presence for the UN and Arab militaries while Gaza gets rebuilt with money sucked in from American coffers. It means the return of Abbas and Fatah to Gaza at a time when the people there will be more interested in reparations, food and medical resources and breathing space in a post-Hamas atmosphere.
The Arab States have no choice but to cooperate with this “Infidel"; this “Great Satan” who is their only venue for full arrival in the first world. They continue to let the oil flow when turning it off would be a loud cry of support for Hamas. They get to continue selling their essential product at a time when turning it off would hurt an already endangered economy. They get to pour their resources into a Fatah-controlled Gaza without worrying about sponsoring a militarist regime whose only goal is the elimination of Israel.
The Arab world of cool heads and reasoned thinkers is silently praying for an Israeli victory which will come at the expense of (more) hatred for the US, not them for their inaction. This is what they want and this is why the Israelis are acting with impunity on the weak premise of responding to rocket fire which does little more than terrorize and annoy the citizens of a small town in Southwest Israel. If it was about the rockets, then why not use the advanced technology of surgical strikes with drones to take out the rocket stashes wherever they may be found?
This is about a much larger picture; ending the reign of Hamas and returning to the peace talks with Mahmoud Abbas speaking singularly for the Palestinians with the blessings of the Arab community. Harsh as it sounds, the only route to peace is through the collapse of Hamas and all other ad-hoc militarist groups seeking to eliminate Israel rather than make peace.
RWH 1-4-2009
Friday, March 21, 2008
Jeremiah Wright, Article 6, And Justice Wanting
" …The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
The U.S. Constitution, Article 6
The U.S. Constitution, Article 6
The current fabricated hysteria over the sermons of Pastor Jeremiah Wright raises some serious questions regarding the above quoted Article 6 from the U.S. Constitution. I remember watching the Arizona Debates during the 2004 presidential campaign. Questions were asked of George Bush and John Kerry regarding their faith, etc. etc. Bush, an evangelistic, re-born Christian was aflame with his adoration of Christianity etc. etc. Kerry, a Catholic not accustomed to defending or saluting his faith in open forum, was rather subdued about it and failed to match the spirit of George Bush.
I have always felt that John Kerry’s lack of passion about his religion contributed in part, to loss of goal to become president of the United States. In the balance, we got the continued presidency of a man who went to war because he felt "America is led by the hand of God". Four years later, we are in serious trouble over his "divinely conceived" plan to invade a sovereign nation without legal cause. The current recession is part of the fallout. George Bush tipped the scales in that very close finish because he pandered to the more generically appreciated, bible-belt, conservative style of Christianity. His is a religion that mixes well with patriotism, mom, and a slice of old fashioned apple pie.
As a former Divinity School student, in the 70’s, I have a fair amount of knowledge about the history of black religion and its inseparable association with the politics of social justice. Slaves were not allowed to worship with their white masters even though it was from them that the religion came. At best, they were allowed to sit in the balconies of the churches and keep their silence. It wasn’t long before slaves began to worship their own unique form of Christianity, seasoned with the religions of their African homeland. Soon, the black spiritual became a venue for secret messaging which aided and abetted the success of The Underground Railroad. The black spiritual, born in the spirit of black Christianity, became most useful as a communication tool for enabling the escape of slaves to freedom in Canada. From the moment it was taught to the slaves, Christianity became a beacon of hope and a tool of justification for throwing off the shackles of slavery and every social inconvenience that has come in the wake of it’s abolition in 1863.
This is not intended to be a lecture on black religion. It is my intention here, to describe the nature of black religion as expansive. It includes not only the worship of Christ and the hope of salvation, but in a very real sense, it accommodates just about all aspects of life in the experience of being Black in America. The black church became far more fundamental to the lives of African Americans than just a place to go on Sundays and worship God. The black church is the apex of the community. Its association with freedom movements and resistance to the government of the United States came with the package. In confronting the thinking of Barack Obama’s pastor, the more fundamental question even more primary than First Amendment consideration, is the interpretation of Article 6 of the US Constitution.
Article 6 came along because the founding fathers did not want the same restrictions placed upon Americans that they escaped from by fleeing the Anglican Church of England. A test of religion implies a prerequisite based on the choice a candidate has made regarding the manner in which he practices his religion. Article 6 is an open statement that could produce a great deal of intrigue at the level of the US Supreme Court as regards interpretation. In the Arizona Debates of 2004, the questioner was clearly testing the measure of belief. One could argue that since the moderator was not a government official, the tone of Article 6 did not apply. One could also argue that if the answers given by the candidates were not satisfactory to the voting public, they would be denied the ultimate public service position; the presidency of the United States. If by failing the test of religion, an aspiring candidate loses the election, then I personally believe Article 6 has been violated by the moderators. I would leave it up to the Supreme Court to make a final decision.
In the case of Barack Obama, who has, for his own reasons, chosen to belong to the church pastored by Jeremiah Wright, the exposing of Wright’s thinking in such a way as to inhibit Mr. Obama from succeeding to the presidency, brings up the same question regarding a violation of Article 6. I know it could be a stretch to see it this way, but for the last week we have been bombarded by Jeremiah Wright’s sermons, not as they apply necessarily to a judgement of Rev. Wright, but as they apply to the candidate that belongs to his church. Questioning Barack Obama’s affiliation with the United Church of Christ as he runs for president is administering a test of his religion. It is, in effect, saying "You, Mr.Obama, belong to the wrong kind of church with the wrong kind of pastor and therefore the public has the right to dismiss your candidacy on the grounds that you may, with your religion, be associating with Anti-American sentiment."
It seems that before we elect a person to the office of president, we want to know what his religious beliefs (or lack of such) are all about. The voting constituency of the American population acts as the administrator in offering the job of the presidency to the candidates seeking that office. If the US Constitution forbids a test of religion"as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States", then any undue scrutiny of a candidate’s association with his choice of religion, church, synagogue, temple, mosque, tent in the open woods or whatever, raises valid issues regarding the meaning of Article 6.
Now obviously, one might raise the example of devil worship, or witchcraft and so forth as a valid reason to question a candidate’s association with those "religions". Chances are, a voodoo priest could get elected president if objections to the practice of Voodun were not allowed in debating forums.
How many times did the Mormonism of Mitt Romney get thrust into the consideration of his becoming president? Maybe Article 6 needs to be amended. Maybe it wasn’t intended to allow Satanists or Frog Worshippers to inhabit the office of the presidency, or any other office of the US Government for that matter. Maybe a test case, or a class action suit needs to be brought before the Supreme court if it can be concluded that Barack Obama’s candidacy was offended by questions pertaining to his pastor’s sermons or the church he chose to join.
Obama’s recent speech on racism, Jeremiah Wright, and the ills of American society, attempted to link the rhetoric of preaching to the overall experience of being Black in America, reaching back into slavery. Since there is a clear connection between black religion and social activism responding to accumulated consequences of the Black experience, it should come as no surprise that Jeremiah Wright chose the pulpit to exhort his opinions about American Policy at home and overseas. His sermons were not anti-American. They were "anti" the America that has ducked under the radar of the US Constitution as well as the Declaration of Independence. Wright’s sermons were a call to what America can and should be, in his opinion. They were a calling of American policies onto the carpet and a suggestion that quite possibly, the actions of American governments over the years have violated moral justice and the thought of the Founding Fathers.
Barack Obama became associated with Wright’s United Church of Christ when he was organizing and advocating for the rights of dispossessed, disadvantaged Americans, most of whom happened to be black. They lived in the worst areas of Chicago and were too poor to matter to that city’s government at the time. The United Church of Christ belonged, at that time, to a council of churches which funded support groups and active efforts to respond to issues of heat, asbestos contamination, single-parent familes, unwed mothers, incarceration issues, HIV-Aids administration and so on. Barack Obama gave up a promising legal career to work for those people and it was the churches in that area that provided money and meeting places as well as other support facilities. If Jeremiah Wright and his congregation hadn’t the heart and spirit to reach out and assist people whom the government ignored, perhaps the association would never have come to fruition.
It could be argued that the facilitation of Obama’s mission in the Chicago housing ghetto was a more fundamental reason for his joining that church. It could be argued that despite the flaming rhetoric of his pastor, he was attracted to the willingness of Jeremiah Wright to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Barack Obama found a comfort zone in the religion of the church he decided to join and enough political activism in the ideology of Reverend Wright to form a relationship with him, which suited Mr. Obama and his family. Now he is being handed a test of his choice as he continues to defend his religion against those who seek one thing: The discrediting of his candidacy for the presidency of the United States.
The ongoing exposé of the ideas and sermons of Jeremiah Wright is a masquerade; a sleight-of-hand operation to deny the presidency to Barack Obama by manipulating the mind of the electorate. If the sermons of Jeremiah Wright were so caustic and abrasively damaging to the character of America, then why NOW are they being paraded in the media and on the opinion pages of publications all over the land? This is not even a violation of Wright’s right to speak his mind. It is simply an effort to obstruct the path to the presidency of Barack Obama, using a test of religion.
Somewhere in the future of presidential campaigns, an agreement of protocol is going to have to come about which adheres to the thinking of Article 6. Hinting at his Muslim and Atheist background was a clear consensus of the idea that a person cannot be president unless his religion satisfies the public conscience. Linking him, through Jeremiah Wright, to Louis Farrakhan, a proud and prominent practitioner of Islam was designed to motivate the fears inherent in the current age of terrorism and anti-Semitism. If religion is to play a deciding part in the election of a US president, then Article 6 must come to the attention of the Supreme Court in terms of revision or official interpretation because it sure sounds to me like we have an infringement here.
The attempt to derail Barack Obama’s candidacy with the ongoing debate over the content of the sermons of Jeremiah Wright has hit its mark. There has been a drop in the Nominating polls along with a rise in the general election polls favorable to Hillary Clinton. If this association between Barack Obama’s faith choice and his chances for winning the presidency prove to be detrimental then bringing a challenge before the Supreme Court regarding Article 6 could be a reasonable consideration.
RWH 3/22/08
Thursday, July 26, 2007
The Dems Left the Building!
Saturday, November 06, 2004
This was no Kerry loss. This was a failure of the Dem leadership to give 100%. Why help John Kerry win when another four years of George Bush gives the rest of the Dem primary field another shot at the prize? 2008 will bring a new election with no incumbent to worry about, and an open chance to replay the primaries, with Hillary Clinton on board this time.
How unhappy are the Dems with this loss? I'd like to take a "happy" meter and attach it to Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, Dennis Kucinich, or even John Edwards. They must be partying hardy in those back rooms over the prospect of another chance to grab the ring. The alternative would have been to wait 16 years while a victorius John Kerry and his VP, John Edwards hijacked the white house.
The people are the real losers here. We needed John Kerry, for no other reason than to liberate ourselves from George Bush! Too bad the Dem leadership couldn't place the needs of the people ahead of their personal agenda regarding 2008. This is what self-service is all about, I guess.
George Bush is now conning the nation into thinking he has the "will of the people". What will? This election was too close to call it an endorsement, but leave it to W to spin what he wants. The Dems let us down. They had the power to defeat George Bush, but the elite failed us with their lack of 105% effort to push John Kerry and John Edwards into the white house. Let us hope that whoever emerges as the Dem presidential candidate in 2008 will get the full support, not just of the dem constituency, but if the Dem power elite as well.
How unhappy are the Dems with this loss? I'd like to take a "happy" meter and attach it to Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, Dennis Kucinich, or even John Edwards. They must be partying hardy in those back rooms over the prospect of another chance to grab the ring. The alternative would have been to wait 16 years while a victorius John Kerry and his VP, John Edwards hijacked the white house.
The people are the real losers here. We needed John Kerry, for no other reason than to liberate ourselves from George Bush! Too bad the Dem leadership couldn't place the needs of the people ahead of their personal agenda regarding 2008. This is what self-service is all about, I guess.
George Bush is now conning the nation into thinking he has the "will of the people". What will? This election was too close to call it an endorsement, but leave it to W to spin what he wants. The Dems let us down. They had the power to defeat George Bush, but the elite failed us with their lack of 105% effort to push John Kerry and John Edwards into the white house. Let us hope that whoever emerges as the Dem presidential candidate in 2008 will get the full support, not just of the dem constituency, but if the Dem power elite as well.
Defense of Freedom?
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
I went into a bar two nights ago to get some chicken wings. I was on my way home from work. This was a neighborhood bar, a downscale, dart-board, Karaoke, beer-on-draft, T-shirt kind of a place. Everyone was smoking and drinking and I immediately knew that I would be there only as long as it took to get my wings. I took a seat forward of the bar near the Karaoke setup to wait for my order.
The drinking was excessive, and I was being harassed by a drunken mumbling patron who was trying to make conversation with me as I sat watching the wailing Karaoke singers wreak havoc on the music culture. Suddenly I had this vision of American freedom as I sat there. Our system enables this kind of freedom. Our system encourages the sale and use of alcohol and cigarettes. This was not the first time since my the onset of my sobriety that I have been able to recognize the deep and profound level of social destruction that substance use/abuse engenders. This was truly a place where I would have to "shake the dust off my sandals" after I left.
It is no wonder why Arab nations are struggling to build Islamic republics which ban such activities, including (God forbid) music. I am not in favor of this, but I understand it. "Freedom" can bring on this kind of social dissolution, immorality, cheating, drunkenness, gambling, etc. that we find so entertaining over here. The Muslims have issues against "freedom" and these issues possess a degree of validity, I think. At any rate, they should be "free" to determine the moral character of their own country and not have to pander to West just because we have the military force capable of overpowering them with death and destruction if they refuse to accept our "gift" of freedom.
When I considered Christian freedom during my Divinity School days, I thought this way: We are free to choose to follow or reject God. Freedom to choose God means freedom to accept the "blessed tyranny" that comes with the package. It means that you are free to either live your life willy-nilly without God or any observance of legislated morality, or choose God and decide to live according to His law. In God's law, there is no freedom to live as one chooses. Christians are yoked (through a "loving" relationship with God) to a narrow morality very similar to Islam. Their existence in a free secular society, however, encourages them to redefine and re-invent their concept of Christian morality to include behaviors that some Muslims find appalling.
The very freedom that we are said to be fighting for in Iraq is the same poison that is enabling the dissolution of our society. It helps to create the same affect that Christians describe as sin. We are free to live as we choose, but not enough of us embrace the degree of responsibility and self-management that needs to accompany such freedom. Many Muslims don't like what they see in our world and blame it on our attitude about personal freedoms.
What about guidance? What about legislated morality? I don't believe in legislated morality, but many Muslims do and all they want is the freedom to enact their own forms of government in a quest to assure morality and control of self. If what that takes is Imams, Princes, Dictators, and Sheiks, then so be it. That is their history. That is their culture. We have Priests, Rabbis, Potentates, Elders, Reverends, and the like fomenting evangelistic influence upon our elected leaders as well as the constituency that elects them. If our "freedom" is so great and desirable, then why do we have to bomb it into their throats and declare it with their blood?
Finally, I should point out that my understanding of freedom in America is that we are able to choose our leaders. We are able to reject our government through free elections. I think the idea of living anyway you want to live is distorted from the principle of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. This comes with a commitment to responsibility which is often neglected in the way some people live their lives. I understand the concept of supporting these elected governments, but there is a limit. The following excerpts are from our beloved Declaration of Independence:
“to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
“when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Here are some excerpts from the grievances named in that same document directed against the British Crown:
“For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us”
“For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States”:
“He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.”
Now George Bush has quartered large bodies of troops among the Iraqis. He has plundered their seas, ravaged their coasts, burnt their towns, and destroyed the lives of their people. I don't even have to paraphrase the Declaration here. I'll just repeat it verbatum:
“He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized” nation.
For these and other grievances, the colonists formed a band of "insurgents" who hid behind rocks and trees, sniping at the British, and committing acts of what could be described as terrorism in defense of their fledgling nation. We must remember our roots. We must respect other nations and their will to self-govern. We must depart from Iraq.
Robert Hamilton 11-9-2004
The drinking was excessive, and I was being harassed by a drunken mumbling patron who was trying to make conversation with me as I sat watching the wailing Karaoke singers wreak havoc on the music culture. Suddenly I had this vision of American freedom as I sat there. Our system enables this kind of freedom. Our system encourages the sale and use of alcohol and cigarettes. This was not the first time since my the onset of my sobriety that I have been able to recognize the deep and profound level of social destruction that substance use/abuse engenders. This was truly a place where I would have to "shake the dust off my sandals" after I left.
It is no wonder why Arab nations are struggling to build Islamic republics which ban such activities, including (God forbid) music. I am not in favor of this, but I understand it. "Freedom" can bring on this kind of social dissolution, immorality, cheating, drunkenness, gambling, etc. that we find so entertaining over here. The Muslims have issues against "freedom" and these issues possess a degree of validity, I think. At any rate, they should be "free" to determine the moral character of their own country and not have to pander to West just because we have the military force capable of overpowering them with death and destruction if they refuse to accept our "gift" of freedom.
When I considered Christian freedom during my Divinity School days, I thought this way: We are free to choose to follow or reject God. Freedom to choose God means freedom to accept the "blessed tyranny" that comes with the package. It means that you are free to either live your life willy-nilly without God or any observance of legislated morality, or choose God and decide to live according to His law. In God's law, there is no freedom to live as one chooses. Christians are yoked (through a "loving" relationship with God) to a narrow morality very similar to Islam. Their existence in a free secular society, however, encourages them to redefine and re-invent their concept of Christian morality to include behaviors that some Muslims find appalling.
The very freedom that we are said to be fighting for in Iraq is the same poison that is enabling the dissolution of our society. It helps to create the same affect that Christians describe as sin. We are free to live as we choose, but not enough of us embrace the degree of responsibility and self-management that needs to accompany such freedom. Many Muslims don't like what they see in our world and blame it on our attitude about personal freedoms.
What about guidance? What about legislated morality? I don't believe in legislated morality, but many Muslims do and all they want is the freedom to enact their own forms of government in a quest to assure morality and control of self. If what that takes is Imams, Princes, Dictators, and Sheiks, then so be it. That is their history. That is their culture. We have Priests, Rabbis, Potentates, Elders, Reverends, and the like fomenting evangelistic influence upon our elected leaders as well as the constituency that elects them. If our "freedom" is so great and desirable, then why do we have to bomb it into their throats and declare it with their blood?
Finally, I should point out that my understanding of freedom in America is that we are able to choose our leaders. We are able to reject our government through free elections. I think the idea of living anyway you want to live is distorted from the principle of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. This comes with a commitment to responsibility which is often neglected in the way some people live their lives. I understand the concept of supporting these elected governments, but there is a limit. The following excerpts are from our beloved Declaration of Independence:
“to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
“when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Here are some excerpts from the grievances named in that same document directed against the British Crown:
“For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us”
“For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States”:
“He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.”
Now George Bush has quartered large bodies of troops among the Iraqis. He has plundered their seas, ravaged their coasts, burnt their towns, and destroyed the lives of their people. I don't even have to paraphrase the Declaration here. I'll just repeat it verbatum:
“He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized” nation.
For these and other grievances, the colonists formed a band of "insurgents" who hid behind rocks and trees, sniping at the British, and committing acts of what could be described as terrorism in defense of their fledgling nation. We must remember our roots. We must respect other nations and their will to self-govern. We must depart from Iraq.
Robert Hamilton 11-9-2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
