Uncouth PerspectivesNot on the rug, man.

Do not be deceived by Internet buzz.

I have been pleasantly amused by everything surrounding Ron Paul and, for the sake of completeness, Mike Gravel. There has been a lot of Internet press about these two, though Ron Paul seems to be the real darling (at least of digg).

As you may have noticed, I posted a Ron Paul video. Please do not construe this as an endorsement, but more that I thought the video was worth sharing. He -does- have good things to say and, more importantly, he says them with conviction. This, I believe, is what people find refreshing more than his actual message.

One of the points he makes is that he is not Libertarian, but that he is a “real” Republican. He makes a convincing argument, besides the issues about peace. The support of war or peace has not been, typically, an issue which divides “the parties.” Rather, it has always, always been power politics motivated. Support for the war waxes and wanes in the public and the parties, any party, try to use this to their advantage.

Ron Paul will not succeed. This is not an issue of liking him or not liking him (I haven’t heard enough to make a decision), but it’s whether or not he can succeed in the main stream and I simply do not believe he will be able to do that. While it IS refreshing to see some of the news outlets turn and say, “whaa?” I do not believe this sort of thing will be a momentum shift.

It will be interesting to see what the internet push will produce. There was a lot of buzz around Howard Dean in 2004 and look what happened. Though, I am going to make a very hindsight guess and say that most of those internet fair-weather fans probably did not reside in New Hampsire.

Success, though, may not be what is important. What do you really want from a candidate? Candor? Success (electability)? Someone who shuts up and let’s you make money? Someone who ties him/herself to a tree? Someone who believes in god?

People are disillusioned with politics for many reasons. I am certainly not one to speak to all of the reasons why. But I can take a guess at one: because a candidate/politicians opinion is based more on a public poll than a personal conviction. This is one of the reasons George W. Bush was re-elected–people see/saw him as a man with conviction. I am awfully tempted to make the simple argument that it is vital for politician to have conviction. It makes sense, right? Fight for what you believe in and get support from and for the people.

The problem with this argument, by itself, is that there is no quantification for the belief. By that reasoning, a blood-thirsty murderer should be a better choice as a candidate for President. (No quips, please.) So, I am not going to make the simple argument that conviction is everything. But, it’s damn important. More important, though, is that the people voting have conviction and, well, vote on that conviction.

If only it were that easy.

This may be a repeat, but I want to rant a little about labels in general. I hinted at some thoughts yesterday, but it’s been a while since I’ve talked about it, so perhaps it is time for a refresher.

I hate labels. I hate stereotypes. I had anything that predispositions a person towards something else, especially if it is another person. A person should be judged as a person, as an individual, not by his or her specific race, nationality, etc. This is not simply anti-descrimination rhetoric. This is the simple truth that all too often on a person-to-person level, people pre-judge because of meaningless and trite things.

Yesterday, I said that I might be labeled as a “compassionate atheist moderate conservative”. Two of those labels are almost ANTI labels. If you break it apart, it is really “compassionate atheist” and “moderate conservative”. In addition, we might add “atheist conservative”. You see, when someone announces they are a conservative, the stereotype associated with it is a radical religious “right-winger” … so it need to be quailified.. I am neither radical nor religious. But THAT needs qualifying, because the stereotype associated with atheist is huuuuuuge.

I can’t avoid acknowledging that they exist. At one point in my life, I tried. I wouldn’t even respond to certain words or phrases. But, that is simply ridiculous. Someone (or perhaps many people) once argued that it is human nature to categorize things. I spent a lot of energy arguing against that viewpoint… but I have perhaps a better answer to it now: who cares?

I mean really, so what if it is natural to categorize things, even humans based off of traits? What I care about is how an individual judges another individual. I don’t care if you think that all poor people are just lazy leeches… if you genuinely interact with poor people, you will find one (and more than one!) that is not. And if you think that all right people are insensitive, money-grubbers.. again, if you genuinely interact with rich people, you will find one (and more than one!) that is not.

So what it comes down to for me is not wether or not it is human nature to categorize things. What is comes down to is that it is a learned behavior to pre-judge an individual because of some lame categorization.

And a bad one at that.

Okay, let’s get down to business. I feel like a person stuck in the middle of everything. If I were to use labels (and you know simply how much I adore labels), I might call myself a compassionate atheist moderate conservative. Who the hell is on my side?

The bottom line is that one of the reasons that I despise categorization and stereotyping is that I personally do not fit into those categories… but, more importantly, I also cannot choose to be part of a mainstream group if I did.

Take, for example, politics. I am very into politics and in perhaps a slightly different life, I would be much more actively involved; how knows, I may still be one day. The thing is that in today’s political enivronment, there’s not many groups that I idenifity with nor could work with. If you take the standard mantra of conservative and liberal (it pains me to enough use these words in this context), I am what you might call a social liberal and fiscal conservative. But even these descriptors are not accurate.

I do not fit in with the camp labeled as liberals. I do not believe in the wonders of government regulation, I do not believe the current welfare system is worth squat, and, for me personally, protesting is a waste of time. god damn dirty hippies.
I definitely do not belong with the camp labeled conservatives. The defensive budget is not the only budget, the executive branch can shove it, and I’m not Christian. Stupid, corrupt bigots.
What, you say? One or both of those is a bit extreme (well, we knooooow conservatives are corrupt, but liberals are not hippies!). Ah-ha! You have taken the first step to realizing that the world is not black or white and people are not liberal or conservative. There are many people who would have you believe that the country is super-polarized, but those are just the people who are getting listened to–that is, the people who are saying these things are the people who are yelling the most.

That makes me wonder if what it takes is to simply yell a bit. I dunno, but I do know a couple of things. 1) I have a voice and I use it. 2) You should, too. 3) And don’t tell me to become some third party.

They’re just a bunch of weenies.

I was reading some ethics work by Stanley Hauerwas, and I came across an interesting topic: Do doctor’s have more power than ministers? To start, let me relate the passages that stood out to me.

My way of explaining this is that when someone goes to seminary today, he can say, “I’m not into Christology this year. I’m just into relating. After all, relating is what the ministry is all about, isn’t it? Ministry is about helping people relate to one another, isn’t it? So I want to take some more Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE) courses.” And the seminary says, “Go ahead and do it. Right, get our head straight, and so on.” A kid can go to medical school and say, “I’m not into anatomy this year. I’m into relating. So I’d like to take a few more courses in psychology, because I need to know how to relate better to people.” The medical school then says, “Who in the hell do you think you are, kid? We’re not interested in your interests. You’re going to take anatomy. If you don’t like it, that’s though.”

Now what that shows you is that people believe incompetent physicians can hurt them. Therefore, people expect medical schools to hold their students responsible for the kind of training that’s necessary to be competent physicians. On the other hand, few people believe an incompetent minister can damage their salvation. [Emphasis added]. This helps you see why that what people want today is not salvation, but health. And that helps you see why the medical profession has, as a matter of fact, so much power over the church and her ministry. The medical establishment is the counter-salvation-promising group in our society today.

The Hauerwas Reader, 2001. Pg 611.

He makes some very interesting claims in these short paragraphs. As a person who does not believe in an after-life, this is nothing short of simple sense to me; that is, personally I place no stock in the salvation principles of a minister and, in fact, anything that a minister can do to better their personal and psychology skills to help people better deal with this life, the more I support it.

What about people of faith, however? Coming from a point of pure logic, it makes sense that a person would seek salvation as a means of prolonging one’s life. That is, mortality is a horrible and scary idea and anyone who truly faces the idea is scared witless. Which is one of the reasons that idea of salvation is important–to know and understand that “the end of life” is not the end. However, in this modern age, do people of faith see life, in today, as more important than salvation? Is the idea of salvation as believable, or worth working for?

One argument possible idea circumvents the above questions, but it deals with Christian Protestantism, or the influence therein. That is, when salvation became a personal issue, the priest/pastor/minister diminished in power. To clarify what some might argue, salvation may have always been important to the individual, but one of the changes made in the Protestant reformation is that salvation became something possible through an individual’s relationship with God, not because of a priest or the church.

My conversation obviously focuses on Christianity and leaves a glaring hole where other religions fit in, yet I am curious as to thoughts on this issue.

What do you think; do doctor’s have more (earthly, secular) power than ministers?

I have an issue, however, that I want to discuss. I feel that this is an issue that will become a very important topic of debate.

Many of you might find this laughable, but I consider myself a conversative. This might be laughable depending on your definiton of conservative and, more importantly, that is what I want to talk about.

If I were to try to put the political views on a two axis view rather than a one axis view, we might end up with something like this:

Traditionally, or at least recently–which might be the same thing to many people–the political axis only swings left or right. Liberal or conservative. Politics is, obviously, quite a bit more complex than this. However, keeping things simple is also important–as long as they are still useful. The problem is there is a second polarity. Fiscal and Social.

In fact, there are more than these two, but I think most of issues of political importance can fall into these categories. For example, government oversite of business practices would be fiscal while abortion issues are social (one might even want to use “moral” instead of “social”, but I think this is wrong).

This is the two axis political spectrum I like to use. One axis is fiscal, one is social. Both have a liberal and a conservative end.

My position is one that has the least amount of power and influence in today’s political process–I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. Even that is a bit generalized and untrue, but again, it is simple.

However, being a fiscal conservative places me, politically, in the traditional single axis “conservative” group. However, this group is both fiscally and socially conservative. As a result of elections and political movements across this country, it might be more prudent to place social first in that list.

There are many others like me, as well. And many of them are rising up, in anger, at the marginalization we feel at the hands of other so-called conservatives. This is going to be a real problem and, perhaps, a largely unexpected problem.

With mainstream focus being on the “bitter political divide” of the two parties (or of ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’) we are seing the really the reaction of extreme to extreme. Those of us in the middle are left both without a voice and without a viable course of action.

I think the “bitter divide” will become more and more prominent in the ‘conservative’ camp and this is the political arena which will become the hottest sparking point.

I say, proudly, no to “Under God.”

To properly cover the issue, the history of the Pledge of Allegiance must first be examined. Then, a discussion of the history of the Establishment Clause (the clause in the Bill of Rights which prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting an individual’s free exercise of religion) and the court’s interpretation thereof. Lastly, the relationship of the Pledge of Allegiance and the Establishment Clause will provide a clear picture of whether this phrase “under God” is constitutional or not.

Perhaps a surprise to many, the original Pledge of Allegiance did not include an affirmation to God. It was written in 1892 by a Baptist minister and Christian Socialist named Francis Bellamy. It read, “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” It was modified in part in 1924 to read “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

In this, one can see that there is no mention of “God” or any sort of non-secular affirmation. The Pledge of Allegiance, at least in 1924, is a political affirmation of the secular state–I believe and support in my country. As can be imagined, this change in 1924 was not the last change. The last change came in 1954, when the phrase “under God” was added. When the “1954 Act” was signed by President Eisenhower he said “From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty.” This sentiment does not appear to be a secular political sentiment. Rather, it appears–no, it openly proclaims–to be a religious affirmation.

The Supreme Court has much to say on state sponsored religious affirmation. According to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal’s ruling on Newdow V. U.S. Congress, the Supreme Court has established three different tests to the Establishment Clause. The first the is “Lemon” test, created in Lemon v. Kurtzman; the “endorsement” test, found in Lynch v. Donnelly; and the “coercion” test, first used in ISKCON v. Lee. Any of these tests may be used to determine the constitutionality of something in regards to the Establishment Clause.

The “Lemon” test checks for three things: (1) does the government conduct in question have a “secular purpose”, (2) does the government conduct in question have “a principal or primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion”, and (3) does the government conduct in question refrain from “[fostering] an excessive government entanglement with religion”.

The “endorsement” test is as follows:

The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person’s standing in the political community. Government can run afoul of that prohibition in two principal ways. One is excessive entanglement with religious institutions . . . . The second and more direct infringement is government endorsement or disapproval of religion. Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.

Lastly, the “coercion” test tells us that it is unconstitutional to include invocations and benedictions in the form of “nonsectarian” prayers at public graduation ceremonies. It relies on the principle that “at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or it exercise, or otherwise to act in a way which establishes a state religion or religious faith, or tends to do so” (emphasis added).

Now that the background of the Pledge of Allegiance has been examined and a solid definition of what tests the Courts use to examine issues relating to the Establishment Clause, a review of the “under God” statement in the Pledge of Allegiance can be done.

As has already been explained, the phrase “under God” was not originally in the pledge and it was later added with an explicit understanding that is affirmed a belief in the “almighty God”. It appears straight forward that, at the least, the statement is not a secular statement and is clearly a religious one. In addition, the phrase lends itself to a monotheistic bent. While many have argued that it is merely a “place holder” for other religions to place their professed belief, those who profess this “place holder” belief have a hard argument to make. Not only does the history of the phrase show it is monotheistic, but to those of a non-Christian or a non-monotheistic background, this is simply not possible.

In his dissent on the Nordow v. U.S. Congress opinion, Justice O’Scannlain argues that by removing the phrase “under God”, it is favoring an atheistic platform. However, this is also not true. To favor an atheistic platform, one would need to affirm a belief that this is a nation �under no god�. Removing this affirmation does not support an atheistic platform�even if the movement is brought up, as it is in this case, by an atheist.

Speaking of affirmation, affirmation is exactly what is at the heart of this issue. Justice O’Scannlian and Justice Fernandez both argue in separate dissents to Nordow v. U.S. Congress rulings that by making the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, we must also refrain from reading historical documents and speeches, such as the Declaration of Independence, or the Gettysburg address, or even the Constitution. If the Pledge of Allegiance were just another document or speech, this argument is solid and true. However, this argument is a classic logical fallacy. The comparison is a bad comparison and riddled with an emotional appeal. To read from a document is different than to make a public affirmation to something, in this case the principles found in the Pledge of Allegiance. As Justice Goodwin says, “to recite the Pledge is not to describe the United State; instead it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and since 1954 monotheism”.

There has been a great uproar because of the issue of “under God” and the Pledge. This is mainly due to a high level of emotional attachment to the issue. For those who ascribe to “the Almighty” as the sovereign power of this nation, by removing “under God”, something seems to be taken away. And in some sense, this is true. But, what is a greater crime, to remove “under God” for some people, or to push “under God” onto the rest?

The Court answered this best in their ruling on Barnette, when they said “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein”.

I’ve written a couple of times in the past about marriage in general and about gay marriage.  I’m going to revisit this subject.  Please give some feedback on this as I’m not here to crusade for or against… just a moral crusade for thought.

I want to remind everyone of something very important about our heated moral debates. Generally, the debates are either a farce or a waste of time. Why? Because the different sides are arguing different points… but they generally do not realize it. It is hard to debate with a person about whether abortion is right or wrong when one person believes life starts at brith and the other at conception. If you ever find yourself in a situation where the other person just DOES NOT GET IT… go back to the defitions. That is where the debate should.. and it seems to be where it never even goes.

So, what about gay marriage?

Well, guys and gals, it’s really about definition.

See, for me, marriage is just a public announcement and commitment to an already true and established relationship; relationship being defined somewhat roughly as a connection of two people on their core values.

By this rough definition, who cares what sex marries what sex?

However, if you’re definition of marriage has to do with a Protestant Christian or Catholic notion that marriage is a holy sacrament to God, or that it is an expression of the relationship to Jesus and the Church, or.. you really don’t think about it and just it evil.

Well, then, hey, damn the gay marriages!

And do not let my generalization about religion get in the way here. It is not just about religion, these religions, or anything like that. Keep in mind that is just an example.

But let us look at something even more important. One of the largest arguments against gay marriage has to do with something that there seems to be little talk about. And that is “it’s harmful to the children”. Well, implied in that argument is the assumption that marriages HAVE to be about children.

And that is what I want people to think about. IS marriage ALWAYS about the children? Would gay marriages “destroy the family as we know it”. In this age of steadily raising population, I don’t think we need to ensure that every couple on the planet get together and pump out children. Many might say that overpopulation is a myth… but if they (or you) do… ask for some harder facts.

Tomorrow is my birthday. For those of you who know me, you may know that my birthday means very little to me. But this year it seems to be a bigger deal. I do not know what it is, but more people are taking an interest in it. I’m getting taken out to lunch.. to dinner..

But I guess that is really not the point, what other people think. I guess it just made it that more poignant. I’m ready for things to start happening. I’m ready to see changes made that I caused to happen, or to be a part of. This desire is in part because I want to be a part of it. But also just because I want to see something good happen.

Even among the readers of Uncouth, the views on life and death are varied. But, I believe quite simply that whether there IS something, there IS nothing, or just void… that we still have a life to live and suffering to beat.

I have a lot of plans. I’m going to keep you up to date more as I move from just school and work into making a difference.

Isaac.

Notes:

As an aside, I was finally able to get back into the page administration. It has been a while because I made some changes to the server and somehow it broke all of the administration code.. not the regular code, just the administration. Anyways, I’ll be going through the past submitted articles and pushing them out. In addition, no more of this infrequent update crap.

Much love to everyone who has stuck it through.

13:14:34) *CENSORED*: http://www.torquecentral.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11571

/**********************************************************

EXCERPT

The Hollywood group is at it again. Holding anti-war rallies, screaming about the Bush Administration, running ads in major newspapers, defaming the President and his Cabinet every chance they get, to anyone and everyone who will listen. They publicly defile them and call them names like “stupid” , “morons”, and “idiots”. Jessica Lange went so far as to tell a crowd in Spain that she hates President Bush and is embarrassed to be an American.

So, just how ignorant are these people who are running the country? Let’s look at the biographies of these “stupid”, “ignorant” , “moronic” leaders, and then at the celebrities who are castigating them:

[Education background of everyone]

While comparing the education and experience of these two groups, we should also remember that President Bush and his cabinet are briefed daily, even hourly, on the War on Terror and threats to our security. They are privy to information gathered around the world concerning the Middle East, the threats to America, the intentions of terrorists and terrorist-supporting governments. They are in constant communication with the CIA, the FBI, Interpol, NATO, The United Nations, our own military, and that of our allies around the world. We cannot simply believe that we have full knowledge of the threats because we watch CNN!! We cannot believe that we are in any way as informed as our leaders.

These celebrities have no intelligence-gathering agents, no fact-finding groups, no insight into the minds of those who would destroy our country. They only have a deep seated hatred for all things Republican. By nature, and no one knows quite why, the Hollywood elitists detest Conservative views and anything that supports or uplifts the United States of America. The silence was deafening from the Left when Bill Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical factory outside of Khartoum, or when he attacked the Bosnian Serbs in 1995 and 1999. He bombed Serbia itself to get Slobodan Milosevic out of Kosovo, and not a single peace rally was held. When our Rangers were ambushed in Somalia and 18 young American lives were lost, not a peep was heard from Hollywood. Yet now, after our nation has been attacked on its own soil, after 3,000 Americans were killed, by freedom-hating terrorists, while going about their routine lives, they want to hold rallies against the war. Why the change? Because an honest, God-fearing Republican sits in the White House.

************************************************************/

(14:11:34) UncouthRanting: Pro/Anti war arguments aside, I have to state from a logic point that is a flawed argument. But it’s interesting, nonetheless.

(14:23:16) *CENSORED*: how so do you believe flawed

(14:26:53) UncouthRanting: It’s a classical Ad Hominem fallacy. The argument is not valid or invalid based on the person. While study at a University, etc., make for a possible better perspective, it does not necessitate it. For example, I have known people who have graduated and really have no idea what they are doing (just a brief example, not intended to make or break my point :} ). Simply put, while the education back ground of the government leaders vs the education background of the celebrity war protestors is both interesting and a facet that you can look at the people making the arguments, it does not mean that the argument is any better or worse. (Again, this has NOTHING to do with war/anti-war sentiment, just looking at it from the logic of the argument)

(14:29:54) *CENSORED*: true, i only did one year of college and i think i turned out just fine ;) just helps put the ramblings of thesbians in perspective

(14:31:49) UncouthRanting: I don’t know if I agree with that; what is important is that we focus on the issue. Many people seem to disagree with me, but we DO have the right to have individual beliefs and voice them. While, again, the information is interesting, I think it can serve only to degrade to personal attacks and mud slinging, rather than focusing on the ethical, political, and social issues surrounding the war.

(14:32:28) *CENSORED*: they’ve been making personal attacks on the president

(14:32:33) UncouthRanting: And just as I disagree with the arguments against the celebreties, I disagree with the arguments against Bush.

(14:33:46) UncouthRanting: So? Does that mean you sling back? That seems kind of ridiculous. If it is so bad that they are making personal attacks, then makeing personal attacks back seems wrong :}

(14:33:59) *CENSORED*: i just find it silly how some people run their mouth on the issue thinking they know more than the president about the situation, …. that’s why i enjoyed the article because they mentioned how the pres. gets briefed all the time whereas the actors get cnn like we do

(14:34:30) UncouthRanting: And that is a much more valid point that the validity of their statements because of their education or the celebrities “shambled” lives… but it is important to never forget that the issue here IS the issue.

—————–

Thoughts?

A blog from a regular, average Iraqi citizen: http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/…