Archive for Humanity

Brit Hume on Christianity, Many Miss the Point

Posted in Politics, Religion with tags , , , , , on January 7, 2010 by raingeg

Brit Hume is not one of Fox News’ controversial political analysts. Out of what I’ve seen of Brit he doesn’t really stray to far from straight up political analysis. And now were are seeing him all over because he recommend that Tiger Woods turn to the Christian faith for forgiveness.

I wasn’t even going to address the issue until I saw that it was picking up some steam and people are not too happy with Brits recommendation. I ran into a compilation of links on This Week they put together reactions to Brits comments, and it seems that people are vastly missing the point.  Here’s just one example.

A short editorial from the Boston Globe:

“Tiger,’’ Hume said, addressing Woods, who wasn’t in the studio, directly, “turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.’’

Yes, but commitment to Christianity couldn’t prevent Bill Clinton from dallying with an intern, Senator David Vitter from contracting with prostitutes, and Senator Larry Craig from being arrested for solicitation in a men’s room, amid thousands of other examples.

Christianity and other major religions provide solid ethical frameworks, but that’s not enough. Whether one is Christian, Muslim, or Zoroastrian, staying faithful to one’s spouse is a test of character, not faith.

I agree with this writer, Christianity would not have prevented Woods or any other person from cheating, but with all due respect, I don‘t think Hume said anything that even resembles that point. He was addressing redemption and providing an example of a religion that offers it.

The hypocritical Christian seems to be a major sticking point for Hume’s detractors. But I, a Christian myself, happen to agree with these people, I’ll always be the first one to point out that the biggest problem facing Christianity is the Christian. This is not a new argument, even the Bible says that everyone has fallen short of the glory of God, we‘re sinners, what would you like us to do stop sinning? Unfortunately that is a no-can-do. Thankfully, Christianity is about grace and forgiveness.

I should point out that This Week did compile a fair and balanced set of editorials and blogs. Go to This Week to read the rest of the blogs.

Society and Its New Form of Sorrow: “I’m sorry, but only if it hurts my image”

Posted in Humanity, Politics with tags , , , , on October 6, 2009 by raingeg

What is sorrow? In our hyper-media and hyper-feelings centered society it seems that sorrow is nothing more than a forced feeling that public figures are supposed to engage in when they say stupid things.

Within the last month we‘ve seen four apologies. This week we saw Sheila Johnson apologize for making fun of Creigh Deeds for apparently stuttering during an interview. Then we have David Letterman’s semi-apology to his wife, or his lack of an apology, after he admitted to having sexual relations with women on his staff, only after someone attempted to extort him. Prior apologies include Joe Wilson’s apology to the President after the infamous “you lie” statement and Alan Graysons apology to the Anti-Defamation League for calling health care in America a “holocaust.” Though Grayson did not apologize to republicans for his comments.

Aside from Joe Wilson, the other apologies came days after the comments were made and only after being berated by the other side. They are more or less damage control. This issue is not about sides as much as it is about respect and meaning what you say.

I guess the real question is whether or not an apology would’ve come had the other side not said anything. In the case of Joe Wilson the apology came quickly after his comments, but in the other cases it happened days later. So basically what they’re saying is that they’re not capable of making moral decisions, until the other side or criticism of their position tells them that what they’ve done is wrong? I’m sorry, but that doesn’t work for me.

Am I saying that we shouldn’t apologize for our mistakes? No. All I’m saying is that if we’re going to apologize, perhaps we should apologize on our own volition and not solely as a result of having someone else tell us that what we’ve done was wrong. What happened to our ability to judge for ourselves? If I say something stupid or offensive I fully expect to be held accountable for my actions, but I should have the ability to hold myself accountable, my opponents desire to tear me down should not be the sole reason for my sorrow. And is that the case in all instances, maybe, maybe not, but it sure appears that way in most of them.

Does it not seem to lack sincerity when the only reason that an individual apologizes is because someone is using it against them. Here’s a thought, think before you speak. If you are going to say something stupid then say it and mean it, because a forced apology seems meaningless in my book. I would prefer someone to say something stupid and mean it than to say something stupid and the retract it. I actually commend Alan Grayson for standing by his comments regarding republicans, at least we know that he really believes the verbal feces that he spews, at least he is as ridiculous as he makes himself out to be.

How about this simple thought, what if we rose above this stupid rhetorical junk that we tend to get caught up in. If you’re going to criticize the other side for something don’t make it about the fact that your opponent stutters, make it about the issues. If you cheat on your wife, apologize to her, and make it known to your audience and the country that you did so. If you need an example of what you should do, look at Joe Wilson. Do something, don’t just sit there and wait for the other side to force you to make a play. Don’t get pushed around by your political opponents, no matter what side of the isle you’re on. And if you’re going to say something mean it.

Recognition Kills: An Easy Concept Made Way Harder Than It Has To Be

Posted in Humanity, Life with tags , , , , on June 18, 2008 by raingeg

Recognition kills, is a concept that I have often thought about after writging a rambling blog post years ago on MySpace. Now I am going to attempt to make something very simple more complicated. It basically means exactly what it say’s. If “A” (an outside observer) recognizes an action that “B” (any one party) commits subconsciously on “C” (either another party or ones self/B), it usually causes B to “kill” (or cease) the action directed at C. For example, if a man (B) puts on his left sock first every morning and an observer (A his wife) tells him that he does this, at that point he might stop doing it, only because he recognizes his actions and begins to think consciously about them rather than doing them out of habit subconsciously. This example has three variables, but, the husband occupies both B and C at the same time. He is B in his subconscious habitual state, but when he transforms into a conscious state of mind, that recognizes the actions that he subconsciously commits he becomes C.

Lets use this couple again for another example to show how B and C can be separate entities. In this example B is the husband and C is the wife. Every Friday they go out to supper with their friends, their friends represent A. Every Friday they go to the same place and do pretty much the same thing. They go to a movie and go to a local coffee shop. The husband and wife usually drive separate cars because they meet at the theatre after they both get off work. Every week the husband will leave early because he has to be up early on Saturday. When he leaves he gives his wife a hug and a kiss, say’s “I love you” and he leaves. Upon observing that the couple does the same thing every week their friends (A) recognize this action and point it out to the couple next week. When the couple (B and C) are told of this by their friends, and made to recognize what they do every week they begin to second guess what they were so unconsciously accustom to. In this example they both become aware.

The question might be asked, why in this situation does the couple not represent one variable as they act in a subconscious state, and then transform into another variable, as in the first example, once something is realized? The answer is simple, the two people react to each other, therefore, when the husband leaves he is initiating an action subconsciously, an action that is directed at his wife. The initiator must occupy B, because B acts subconsciously towards something or someone. Whether or not C is reacting to B’s subconscious act consciously or otherwise is of no consequence. One might say, if C consciously knows and recognizes B’s actions and tells B, does that not effect the theory? It does not, you then are using the first example I illustrated, where B and C are occupied by the same person, and the C in the second exampled would actually be A if you were to look at it that way. If you do look at it that way the friends do not matter, they become obsolete.

Now lets examine the reasoning for people to behave this way. There are many reasons why a person might stop something that they are doing, as a result of it being pointed out to them. Based on the first example we can see that the husband might stop putting his left sock on first solely based on his desire to not be predictable to his wife, and or not wanting to be predictable to his own self. In life we are our worst critics because we know so much about ourselves. The husband might have very well known that he put his left sock on first but it didn’t matter to him and it became a pattern enacted at a near subconscious level. Only when it was pointed out to him, did he start to think about his life in terms of the small inconsequential actions that he commits. I think that humans like to be individuals, each human’s individuality is on a different level, but if you look at the basic actions we make every day we do not want to be predictable because that keeps us from having a firm grasp on our individuality. This is only a byproduct of being around other people for long periods of time. Earlier I said that we are our worst critics because we know ourselves so much. The same could be said for Husbands and Wives as well as a couple’s or a person’s friends. If we are around people long enough we start to open ourselves up to those people and they can then start to see what we do on a subconscious level better than we can. This is because they most likely don’t do the same habitual things as their friends or spouse.

It should be noted that this is not a rule for human interaction, nor is it the only thing that can happen in the given situations. I have to admit that something could be pointed out to a person and they could commit that action again with more fervor. That would most likely be done intentionally, maybe with spiteful intentions, but nonetheless humanity does not react to every situation the same. A person might also just live in denial about what they do at a subconscious level, even after it is pointed out to them by another person. All this is, is a way to view how a person that is not self aware acts when that person becomes self aware. And as goes with this situation everyone will react differently, this is just how I think most humans would react.

Inanimate Objects: Good, Bad or Neither?

Posted in Life with tags , , , , , on March 13, 2008 by raingeg

You see it on every side of the isle, classifying an object as good and evil when the goodness of an object is determined not by what that object can do but by what the handler of that object does with it. These objects are double edged swords that can be used and abused, sometimes used for good and sometimes for evil.

Take for example the gun. A gun can be used in many ways; hunting, defense and murder. When it comes to speaking about guns you have to choose your words wisely. It would be a fallacy for me to say that guns fire bullets or guns kill people. That would personify the gun by implying that the gun has the power to shoot on its own. Objects need humanity to effect how the given object will be used and should not be personified. When explaining an action that any one object inflicts on a subject or another object, you have to address the fact that the object has to be controlled by a person. If the driver of a car runs a red light, blame is not placed on the car, we place the blame on the driver of the car. In the same way, we should not blame a gun for actions that it has no way of committing.

The next example is more prevalently seen as “evil” on the Christian side, a side that I adhere to. It is in regards to alcohol. I realize that alcohol has done a lot of damage to homes around the world. But, when people make an argument against alcohol and for gun use or visa versa you are really putting yourself in an interesting corner. Just like in the case of the gun, alcohol needs someone to use it in order for it to have any effect on society. It would also be wrong to personify alcohol, by saying that alcohol gets people drunk. At a glance that seems true, but it is not. You would have to say, people get drunk when they drink to much alcohol.

There is one other argument against alcohol that should be mentioned. That is being accountable to the people around you. Some would say that if a Christian was to drink around other Christians; with past problems with alcohol or a new Christian you might be setting a bad example. In doing this that person might then start drinking alcohol again or a new Christian might get the wrong impression of what Christianity is. This is a very good example of where it comes down to the person drinking. You have to be responsible and very knowledgeable of the people that you are around. It is not a good idea to drink around a friend that has an alcohol problem. We must also take into account that having a drink and getting drunk are very different things, and when we do something we should not only look at what we are doing, but how we do what we are doing. If you do it the irresponsible way than you are wrong for doing that. This is not a black and white issue, there are a lot of components; the amount, the type, the place and the people you are with. If you are reading this and you have a problem with alcohol don’t go out and drink, this is not a pass to say its alright. This is aimed at the people that automatically put a good and evil label on something that cannot possess either without the guidance of a human.

Lets apply the aforementioned scenario with alcohol to guns. Lets use an irresponsible gun owner. Take for example, the absence of a safe in the house. Safes are a must have for any gun owner. You should not let someone stumble upon your gun, in particular a child, allowing them to accidentally shoot themselves or allowing them to use the gun for harm. This is exactly the same as allowing someone to access alcohol that should not have it. You are responsible for your actions and the objects that you use. But when using these objects you should exhibit the utmost responsibility with them.

Would it not be a powerful testament of a person that drinks alcohol, if someone could see that person drink just a little alcohol and stop. The same goes for a gun owner. Wouldn’t it be great to see gun owners that are responsible with their guns. You will never see good press on either object. You will always hear about another shooting and another person killed by a drunk driver, not that this is totally bad, it is just how our press works. How exciting would it be if we had a story titled “Drunk person decides not to drive” or “Gun owner teaches son how to properly use gun”. I think that people take everything to the extreme when it comes these issues, making them black and white issues when they obviously not. Every gun owner is not a murder and everyone that drinks is not a drunk.