This is an appeal to your reason. Reason is defined as: a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. That’s simple enough, although where the “rubber meets the road”, is implementing the understanding of that definition as it applies to reality. Reality is defined as: the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Now, we get into an element of subjectivity; that is, the contrast between actuality and idealism. Actuality requires a very dispassionate and objective view of the referred to “state” of things. On the other hand, idealism reflects the way people would like things to be, or the way they ought to be in the mind’s eye of the beholder, or put another way, as a subjective view of that “state” of things.
A person who reasons, must do so from a source of knowledge. That source of knowledge can be either empirical (actual first hand experience, or through history as second hand experience), or through faith based upon emotion, what we’re told by a subjective authority or what we’re told by an objective authority.
The problem with relying upon empirical evidence of reality is that not everyone can experience everything, and even if two or more people experience the same thing, they may not view that experience the same way – the same would apply to emotions. Take for example witnesses to an automobile accident; each may give a different interpretation of the accident depending upon from which vantage point they saw it. Not too long ago, Hollywood made a movie where there were multiple witnesses to an attempted political assassination, and they ran through the same scene multiple times from different perspectives – all of which varied. It drove home the point made above, and satisfied the need for a low budget movie at the same time Movie Vantage Point.
If people cannot see an event or fact from the same perspective, then how will we come to agreement – especially as regards important things such as prosperity, peace and justice? The Immediate answer to that question is that it is not a likely possibility, although we should not give up trying to do so. A current example of the dilemma is people’s view of President Donald Trump. There are those who believe Trump is the Devil incarnate, and those who believe he’s a saint. The most obvious conclusion to that is that he cannot be both. So, how is reality established? Is reality subject to the “middle ground” (more often than not, referred to as compromise)? Certainly, the halls of power are always looking for that middle ground of agreement, but does that establish reality? Is that what is necessary for prosperity, peace and justice? How can you compromise on justice? If it’s just, then it is not unjust. If it is unjust, then it is not just. There is no compromise on a root principle of life. Keeping that in mind, there is compromise, and there is majority rule, but you cannot compromise the truth in reality without altering reality to suit a subjective whim.
Under majority rule (often referred to as democracy), the majority can inflict their sense of justice upon the minority. Democracy is frequently referred to as two wolves sitting down with a sheep and voting on what’s for dinner. Would you rather be the wolf or the sheep in that case? It’s been said that once the people are able to vote themselves to the purse strings of government, then democracy will devolve into chaos and all sorts of injustices. And, who benefits from that? It’s always the puppet masters at the top of the mountain – the bankers, politicians, spiritual leaders and corporate chieftains.
How do they get to this position? It’s easy, and you can see it unfolding right before your eyes. It’s the oldest military strategy in the history of the world – divide and conquer. Get the blacks to hate whites; get the atheists to hate Christians, get the poor to hate the rich, get the citizen to hate the immigrant, get the young to hate and rebel against the old etc. etc. There is nothing new to these tactics, but in America, people seem to be blinded to what’s going on. There is an interesting painting in the Old Court House in Lausanne Switzerland Justice Lifts The Nations Painting Blow up the painting if you can in order to see the detail. If you can’t do that, then here’s an interpretation of the painting.
Lady Justice stands above all of the populace. She is balancing the scales and doing so blindfolded so as to not show preferences and prejudices as people below her dispute amongst themselves. She holds in her hand a sword which is pointing to an open book which is the Bible. All of the people below are looking up to her for justice, and looking at the Bible for an “objective” authority to achieve that justice. The architect is disputing with the builder, and the jurists are appealing for guidance. This is an old painting, and it provides a visual perspective for how we may at least resolve our differences even if we don’t see all things the same way. People will, of course, say that that is your interpretation of the Bible, and that may be applicable in many instances, but the wording in the Bible doesn’t change, nor does it accommodate emotions and opinions. When Christ says “love your neighbor as yourself”, there is not a lot of opportunity to pervert that without being an abominable hypocrite.
An example would be if someone wants to vote for a tax that spends other people’s money to support churches (a theoretically loving act?). The atheists would be offended by that and consider it unjust. Christians would also see that as unjust, because it would give the government a lever over churches – especially weak ones which have no understanding of the ramifications of it all. The politicians would love it, because it would sow the seeds of discord causing everyone to seek redress of their grievances from the same politicians who instituted the unjust law. There is no way the person pushing that legislation could do or be anything but hypocritical in their response, and/or obedience to such a law. The bottom line in this scenario would end up being love yourself at the expense of your neighbor. That is a recipe for injustice, civil strife, impoverishment of a nation’s spirituality, economics, liberty, morality and so on.
Getting back to reason; where does it comes from? If the source is man, then we will continue to suffer all of the injustices listed above because of the indisputable points made. On the other hand, if reason comes from God, then we have a Benevolent, Dispassionate, Merciful, Objective and Just Source for our conduct. We can then go to His word in Scripture and ask; “What does God say about private property, liberty, justice, morality etc.?” The alternative is to continue the slide down the “slippery slope” of injustice, immorality, murder, war, thievery, oppression, iniquity and on and on.
Picture, for a moment if you will, you’re living in the 1950’s. I lived in the 1950’s, so it’s not hard for me to do that. That’s less than 70 years ago. Now, understand the following were actual realities that can easily be verified from numerous authoritative sources including municipal, county, state and national archives along with archived newspapers, and even archived television shows.
Here’s the list of factual realities:
Virtually all retailers were closed on Sunday in order to honor and obey the Christian Sabbath.
Marriage was considered to be between one man and one woman, and there was no public debate over the issue.
Transgender was not in the English lexicon or even the dictionary.
Homosexuality was illegal and punishable by law in all 50 states of America.
The United States Supreme Court had made multiple rulings that America was a “Christian nation”, and the Constitution, writings of the founding fathers and historical precedence, was the basis for their decision.
Inflation (legalized thievery by the bankers) was less than 4/10ths of a percent a year, and as little as 2/10ths of a percent a year. What is it today?
Every passbook savings account could rely upon a 4 – 5% interest rate which encouraged savings (as opposed to rampant spending and debt with no savings today – how’s your bank account?)
People understood that the borrower was slave to the lender, and people entered into debt very thoughtfully, and usually only for necessities such as a home, major medical care, and maybe a college education which cost a couple of thousand dollars a year, but mostly, people saved until they could afford something, and have a nest egg left over as well. Today, you can finance your mattress purchase over a three year period.
Minimum wage was not sufficient to support a life style.
Being on welfare was stigmatized, and very few people were on it.
The taxpayer was not asked to subsidize people’s deadly, dirty and disgusting immoral behavior – you know, the kind that spreads communicable sexually transmitted diseases.
Food stamps were an actual stamp you took to the store and spent like money, and anyone in line could see you were living off of the government. (Now you get a credit/debit card to conceal the fact)
Child molestation was virtually unheard of.
School shootings were virtually unheard of – just one in my recollection up to my graduation from high school.
Cops were pleasant people who tried to help correct miscreant children such as myself, instead of cuffing me and running me down to the station for booking, they took me home and shamed me before my mother. The hope was always that she would not tell my father.
Kids walked freely, even at night, without fear (for the most part) of violence and gangs. Gangs were becoming an issue in major east coast cities, but not anything like today, and little to no problem in the middle red states.
Children respected adults and their authority.
Politicians were approachable, and you’d see them in the store or on the street, and they would give individual responses to your letters without a lot of equivocation, obfuscation, or generalities, and definitely no arrogance.
A high percentage of people (well over 80%) went to church, and believed the Bible was true.
So, what’s the difference today? Today, we are enlightened, and no longer follow the antediluvian teachings of the Bible. Today, morality is in the eye of the beholder. Today, we are the individual arbiters of truth – that’s your truth, but not mine. So, to quote Pontius Pilate’s response to Jesus Christ; “What is truth?”
If it isn’t true for all, then it isn’t true for any; as truth exists apart from opinion, perception or feelings and may not be manipulated. Truth is the essence of reality.
Pensamiento Peligroso writes the truth as he sees it, and if it upsets you, then it makes you think!