Ten Reasons I Hate Politics and One Reason I Don’t - Part 2

2.  I’ll Do Anything To Get Elected

I’ll even kiss your baby if that’s what it takes.

“No, thank you. I don’t want to take the chance that those politician parasites get transferred to my child. There’s been too much of the resulting disease going around as it is.”

I will admit, it must be hard being a presidential candidate. You have to travel everywhere, mingle with thousands of people you don’t know and pretend to be their friend or even a long lost family member, and not let anything anyone says to you get under your skin (or at least be able to wait until you get back to your hotel room to exfoliate). You have to remember tons of facts (or at least the ones that favor your position) about the economy, the climate, energy, agriculture, the culture, terrorism, world politics, world leaders, world champions, and world scumbags. And God forbid you should ever forget the name of a federal agency you want to defund. That’ll cost you the election in nothing flat.

But the biggest things that have to be remembered are the lies or misrepresentations you are perpetuating about your opponent. Mark Twain is known for saying, “If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.” I suppose he would also say, “The more you lie, the more you have to remember.” This being so, we know that most politicians have to remember a LOT. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, I believe that before you can become a professional politician, you have to pledge that you will lie at every opportunity. Well, at least at every opportunity that helps your campaign and diminishes the other guy’s.

Much of the misrepresentations the politicians use against one another involves statistics. But as Mark Twain was also known for saying, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” I know where Twain is coming from. I did a lot of statistical analyses of data in my former day job, and I know that there are many ways of presenting statistical results. Look at the data one way and things seem bad. Look at them another way and things seem good. I’ll let you guess which way the politicians use these results when it comes to themselves versus their opponents.

A politician must always be quick to point out how the decisions of their opponent nearly collapsed Western civilization (which some actually believe is a good thing) and how all of his or her own decisions led to full employment, a budget surplus, the cure for cancer, and even the emergence of the Internet. The savvy politician must NEVER admit that anything his opponent did ever led to something good. But if it is obvious to everyone that it did lead to something good, then you MUST find a way to divert the credit back to someone in your own party.

Perhaps you are a person that likes all these shenanigans that politicians like to pull. I don’t. I like to give credit where credit is due and blame where blame is due. Unfortunately, I am finding more and more things to blame coming out of DC and less and less things to credit.

First Contact – Part 16 – Unitarian Universalist

The Unitarian Universalist (UU) church began in 1961 when the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) formed from a consolidation of the American Unitarian Association and the Universalist Church of America. Both of these groups had roots in liberal Christianity.

Basically, the Unitarian movement stemmed from people who were anti-Trinitarian, meaning they did not ascribe to the belief that God was a triune being. They had a scriptural basis for this belief and were thus willing to suffer persecution. One famous example was that of Michael Servetus. He was a 16^th century Spanish theologian and polymath who developed a non-Trinitarian Christology. Upon traveling to Geneva, he was denounced by John Calvin, tried for heresy, and burned at the stake by the city council. It is hard to understand how any human can come to believe that an all-loving longsuffering God wants a person to be executed for simply having a different understanding of what the Scriptures teach.

The Universalist movement stemmed from people who believed that a loving God would not condemn anyone to eternal torment. Rather, they believed that after some type of punishment for their sins, everyone would eventually be reconciled to God.

The defining principle behind the UU church is that no one has a corner on the truth market. It is the responsibility of each individual to pursue and find truth. Knowing that different people will reach different conclusions means that tolerance of differing beliefs is necessary. This is a principle I can personally live by since that is what freedom is all about.

Thus the UU church is really an umbrella under which many differing ideas reside. Even so, it seems that the predominant group in the church is the Humanists. My personal take on Humanism is that it is for spiritually minded non-religious people. Humanists tend to deny all religions while seeking a connection to the Universe and their fellow man; social justice being important to the latter.

I first heard of the UU church many years ago, but I never really had contact with it until after my deconversion. One day I noticed in our local newspaper that the one UU church in our area, the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of the Shoals, regularly announced who was going to be speaking that week and the topic he or she would be speaking about. One week the speaker was from our local university and the topic sounded interesting, so I attended. The building was rather small, but nice. It turned out that I knew a few people who were members. While interesting, I did not find the service intriguing enough to attend on a regular basis.

About four years ago, I heard that a retired friend from work, Bill Parkhurst, was going to speak. Bill is a longtime member of the UU church. At work, he was known for wearing mostly short pants and a Hawaiian shirt. I was curious to see if he would be dressed this way while “preaching” at his church. He did not disappoint.

Bill’s speech was interesting, especially the part when he introduced me to the audience as being a recent fellow retiree. Ha! But seriously, the part I remembered most was when he discussed a book entitled “A Short History of Nearly Everything” by Bill Bryson. A few weeks after Bill’s talk I had an unexpected extended visit to the bathroom in the middle of the night. Fortunately, I had my iPad with me. I decided I needed something to read. Remembering Bill’s recommendation of Bill’s book, I downloaded the Kindle version and began reading it right there on the toilet. Isn’t modern technology wonderful?

My son Andrew has attended the UU church a bit himself. A few weeks ago, he heard that Dr. Carl Gebhardt, the retired pastor from our local Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and adjunct professor of religion at our local university, was going to be speaking. So he went. As you may recall, I mentioned Carl in my last First Contact post about the Disciples of Christ. Anyway, Andrew informed me that Carl was also going to be speaking the next two Sundays. I decided to attend both weeks with him. I found the messages Carl presented at these services to be both interesting and entertaining.

If I had to identify myself with any particular church, I guess it would be with the UU church. I firmly believe that each person in this world must seek out truth and determine the meaning of life on his or her own. Of course, we can help each other out with open discussions. But ultimately our conclusions must be our own, not dictated to us by others. Fortunately, in the United States, most religious people have this UU mentality. They believe in the freedom of religion where no one group dominates the beliefs of the country. I believe most understand that if one religious group came to dominate our nation, it just might NOT be theirs. Unfortunately, there are still parts of the world where this is not true. There are still some that believe that the world should be converted to their way of thinking or suffer death.

Even though I mostly identify with the UU church, I have a difficult time identifying with its Humanist members. They tend to be more liberal politically than I am. My friend Bill is quite a bit more liberal than me, which makes for some interesting discussions on Facebook. I consider myself more of an Individualist. I will discuss this more in a future post.

Presidential Debate 2

Well, as most of you know the second debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney took place tonight. And they both came out fighting. No boxing gloves; no bare fists; no spinning jump kicks. Only tongue lashings. Both candidates’ faces were thoroughly covered with the other’s saliva by the end of the debate. So, who won? Well, I was totally surprised when after the spit settled, the last man standing wasssssss… GARY JOHNSON. Yeah, I was just as astounded as you were. How in the world could a candidate that was not even in the debate, due to not being invited, end up being the winner? After conducting a brief but thorough analysis, I figured it out. Obama and Romney totally discredited each other by outing their opponents as liars. Neither candidate even mentioned any lies that Johnson had told. BINGO, Johnson WINS!!

Okay, I know what you’re thinking. “Who cares about a candidate that was not in the debate? Just tell me who won between the two debaters that actually debated?” I think those questions are nothing but a bunch of malarkey, but I’ll still provide sort of an answer. Both candidates are quite forceful and convincing when espousing their policies. But keep in mind that both of these guys only tell you the things that make themselves look good. They leave it up to the other guy to tell you the bad stuff. Who knows who is telling the truth? Also, they each tell us how their plan is superior to the other guy’s plan. But in the end, who can predict this? The bottom line is their records. This is a matter of fact, not opinion.

So, how have President Obama’s plans worked so far? Well, as is usually the case, some have worked okay, some not so okay. But when it comes to the thing that is most on the minds of people today—the economy—his plans haven’t fared so well. Unemployment hasn’t improved in the last four years. More people have stopped looking for work. More people are getting government assistance. Incomes are declining as prices are inclining. The debt keeps climbing while hope keeps rappelling. This is not good. To be fair, Obama says that four years was not enough time to turn the economy around and points to signs of things getting better. Well, I say this: the predictions Obama made about what the state of the economy would look like at the end of his first term did not materialize. So, it’s time to let someone else take the helm and show us how his predictions won’t come to pass either. If it’s not going to be Johnson, I guess it’s going to have to be Romney.

The Vice Presidential Debate

I once read from a political humorist—I believe it was P.J. O’Rourke—that while liberals are declaring that spending has been cut for a program, the conservatives are saying that spending has increased for that very same program. So who’s telling the truth? Well, they both are. In other words, they’re lying.

Well, I felt the same way about the VP debate between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan. They were both telling the truth, yet they were both lying. So, who won the debate? They both did. In others words, they both lost.

Let’s face it; everyone needed a quick-response extremely accurate fact-checking Siri running at full tilt to discern who was telling the truth. Almost the entire debate consisted of one candidate speaking, then his opponent saying the other was speaking malarkey, not being candid, not telling the truth, or pointing out how the other’s nose was elongated. How could a regular ole Joe like me, who doesn’t spend 24 hours a day following the news, have a clue as to who was right, who was wrong, or who was just downright stupid? To tell you the truth, the bantering got so intense at one point, I fell off to sleep. Of course, part of that could have been me getting relaxed due to my wife massaging my legs, but I think I’ll blame it on the debate instead.

Personally, I think the debate most likely consisted of each candidate telling the half-truth that favored his own party. The real story probably lies somewhere in the middle of these two half-truths, perhaps in lying territory. So, I saw no clear winner in the debate and no way of determining who won short of spending the next four years researching their answers. But then it would be time for another election requiring just as much research. Oh well!

However, I did see a clear winner on two fronts. Joe Biden was definitely the winner when it comes to laughing and shaking his head incredulously while his opponent spoke. Paul Ryan was the definite winner for making the most ridiculous grin while his opponent spoke. So, there you go. Whichever of these two traits you believe is most important for a vice president to possess will determine for you who won the debate.

Worse Than the Holocaust?

I think we can all agree that the Holocaust that occurred in Germany during World War II was a tragic, horrid event. It’s the type of event that humanity would very much like to prevent from ever happening again. Most humans are compassionate and look with horror upon the suffering of people at the hands of evil. We want the perpetrators of these despicable acts tracked down and punished. Many people relish the thought of Hitler and his minions being cast into a fiery hell, getting their comeuppance for their misdeeds. While I too like to see evil punished, my bigger concern in the case of the Holocaust is the fate of the victims.

As we know, the majority of the people killed during the Holocaust were Jewish. This is unfortunate if we are to believe some Christians. According to them, everyone who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior will end up in a fiery hell. I would venture to guess that the majority of the Jews tortured and killed at the hands of Hitler had not converted to Christianity. Therefore, they will supposedly spend eternity in hell RIGHT ALONGSIDE HITLER!! I don’t know about you, but this form of justice seems to come straight from the Bizarro World of the DC Comics. It’s the ultimate example of jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

Think deeply about this. WWII Germany inflicted much pain and death on a group of people based on who they were by birth and what they believed religiously. Most people find this unfathomable. Yet, many of the same people who are horrified by the actions of Hitler actually believe that their God is going to inflict infinitely more pain on those same people. If Hitler was a monster, what does that make God?

Many believers, in an attempt to exonerate God, say something like this, “God does not SEND anyone to hell. He simply gives them a choice of their eternal destination while living on Earth. Those that choose hell will get their wish.” To that I say, “BALONEY!” People are not put on a precipice with heaven in view above and hell in view below and then asked to choose where they want to go. We all know what each person’s decision would be under those circumstances. Rather, people are asked to choose their faith based on incomplete information. Most people who reject Christianity, or any religion for that matter, do so because they simply don’t believe it. Some have investigated it as thoroughly as possible and found it wanting. Some don’t really think about such things and just accept the faith of their parents or peers. The point is, people are NOT in any way saying, “Hey, I like that idea of being tormented for eternity. I can’t wait to get there so I can writhe in pain day after day without end. I sure hope hell is just as Robert Jeffress described it on his radio program: dark, lonely, nothing to touch, no one to talk to, my body feeling as though it is ablaze. And to top it all off, after I have been though this suffering for ten billion trillion years, my suffering will not have been reduced in length by even one second. Yeah, that’s what I want. Who wants to join me?”

It should be plain that our supposed choice between heaven and hell is not as simple as choosing what we’re going to have for breakfast. There are a lot of competing religions and philosophies in the world all claiming they have the real truth. Since God does not come to us directly to reveal which is correct, we are left to ponder this ourselves and make a decision with far less information than we really need to make an intelligent decision. Ask yourself: would a loving God torture a good person for simply not being convinced of the truthfulness of a particular religion? If so, how does that speak to his morality? Some say that since God is sovereign he can do whatever he wants and he is still moral. Well I have news for you, I can be perfectly moral if given that amount of leeway. So could everyone on the face of the Earth, including Hitler. I just don’t buy that. Certain actions are evil no matter who perpetrates them; God included. Otherwise, morality has absolutely no meaning. We are told that we should emulate God in our actions toward other people. But if God can do anything to anyone and it be perfectly moral, then in the process of emulating him, so can we. This makes no sense.

The issue of man’s choice of his eternal destination is further complicated if God is omniscient as many claim. If God actually knows from eternity past how every human being will live his life, then why would he create anyone that was going to “choose” hell. Since we humans have no choice about being born, who really bears responsibility for us existing and making the choices we make? Certainly not us.

For further reading about what some believers are saying about hell, try these:

Hank Hanegraaff, “Abandon Hope, All Ye Who Enter Here”

Bill Wiese, “23 Minutes in Hell”

Robert Jeffress, “Outrageous Truth…7 Absolutes You Can Still Believe”

Of course, there are some Christians that do not believe the Bible teaches that hell is a place of eternal torment. I did a study several years ago and concluded this myself. Some people teach that unbelievers will be annihilated, while other teach that in the end all mankind will be saved. Here’s some reading along these lines:

http://www.helltruth.com

http://bible-truths.com/lazarus.html

http://www.thetruthabouthell.org/

Here’s a motto to live by: THINK before you BELIEVE.

Thoughts About "An Inconvenient Truth"

Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" was quite a good documentary. Gore is a compelling speaker and very convincing. However, having listened to both sides of this global warming, or climate change, or whatever the PC term for it is these days, issue, it really points up to me how very difficult it is to know truth. Both sides make compelling cases, so who are we to believe? It is of great interest to me how two people can look at the same evidence, or read the same document, and reach almost entirely opposite conclusions. We see it in the philosophical realm, the religious realm, and yes, even the scientific realm. Most of the differing conclusions come from the fact that each person has his/her own level of evidence that is required to become compelling in his/her own mind. Since we rarely have the evidence required to be 100% certain of most things of import, we see greatly varied opinions. In many cases the actual truth lies somewhere between the most ardent believer and the most ardent skeptic.

All, Some, or None: Truth in the Bible

A couple of days ago (Sept 24, 2009), I was listening to David Jeremiah's radio program "Turning Point." He made what seemed like a controversial statement. He said people needed to be aware of the Bible's limitations. Huh? He went on to say that what he meant was that the Bible contains all the truth we need, but not all the truth there is. In other words, there are truths on which the Bible does not expound. However, all such truths are non-essential. Okay, I understand this. After all, if every truth had been written in the Bible, it would be too large to carry to church, even if it were on microfiche. (If you are so young you do not know what microfiche is, look it up.)

Now, the question is: does the Bible contain only essential truths, or does it contain both essential and non-essential truths. Well, we first have to determine what truths would be classified essential. As I understand Christian beliefs, the only things that really matter are those things with eternal consequences. Thus, the most important truths would be those related to obtaining salvation. So, ask yourself this question. Is the knowledge of everything written in the Bible necessary for one to be saved? Obviously not. Else, I do not believe anybody would be saved.

Now, consider this. Does the Bible contain every truth necessary for salvation? If you think about it seriously, you'll see that it does not. After all, to be able to read and understand the essential truths of the Bible, one must have already come to understand the meanings of the words, in whatever language he or she is reading them in. They must understand how words are put together into sentences and how then to interpret correctly those sentences. They must already have a knowledge of how to discern the words of a charlatan from those of a sage. They must have an understanding of how the world works so as not to believe obvious falsehoods. Without all this precursor knowledge, it would be impossible to comprehend the essential truths of the Bible. Yes, a person lacking in some of these skills could get someone else to help him along, but then he would be latching onto a secondhand faith rather than one completely his own.

Oh, and don't forget that a person also needs skills in obtaining food and shelter in order to survive. A dead person is not really interested in truth, Biblical or not.

Whatever Floats Your Boat

You have probably heard someone use the expression in the title of this post: "Whatever Floats Your Boat." It is usually said in response to someone expressing his or her personal beliefs or personal likes and dislikes. The responder, by saying the aforementioned words, is expressing an opinion that basically says, "You can believe or like whatever you want as long as it makes you happy or fulfills your life, even if the same does not apply to me." This is obviously true when it comes to subjective matters such as what hobbies a person likes or what a person's favorite colors are. However, should it apply to matters that are factual in nature?

For instance, if a person decides that, for him, four plus four would henceforth be equal to nine, would it be appropriate to say, "Whatever floats your boat?" I don't think so. I dare say that most people would challenge this statement, saying that it is false for everyone. Yet, when it comes to certain philosophical or religious beliefs, many people are hesitant to challenge the truthfulness of the beliefs regardless of how irrational or contradictory they are. They, in essence, respond, "Whatever floats your boat."

Many years ago when I was a member of the Church of Christ, a fellow believer and I were at a local hobby store. We discovered that the owner was an acquaintance of mine. We began talking about various topics and eventually got around to discussing religious beliefs. The acquaintance told us he was a member of some denomination, I believe Baptist. My friend and I began expressing some of the differences between his denominations' beliefs and those of the Church of Christ. With every statement we made, he would respond something like this: "That's great that you believe that way. If it works for you, that is good. I will believe what works for me." In essence, he was saying, "Whatever floats your boat."

Of course, when it comes to beliefs concerning the supernatural realm, no one knows what the absolute truth is. They may think they do, but they don't. In reality, we don't even know for sure if the supernatural exists. So, "Whatever floats your boat" seems to be the appropriate mentality.

But what about the case where a person knows the truth about something, yet chooses to believe something different because it makes them feel good? Or how about people who withhold the truth from a friend or family member because they sincerely believe the person would become overly distraught. What is more important, believing a disturbing truth or a feel-good falsehood? This has always been an intriguing question to me.

I personally prefer the truth to a feel-good lie. I just don't like the idea of believing something false. As those Hulu aliens say, that's the way I roll. In many cases, believing something false can lead to all kinds of trouble or conflict, particularly when the untruth concerns other people. Yet I know there are people who, as Col. Nathan R. Jessep (Jack Nicholson) said in A Few Good Men, can't handle the truth. To them I say, "Whatever floats your boat!"