That which cannot be sensed by man’s five senses is regardless of that state still in existence, or is it? It would be rash to consider the wind or the cold non existent simply because we cannot see them for, we can feel them. It would be unwise to consider odors a figment of the imagination simply because we cannot feel, see, or hear them for, we can smell them. It is absurd to consider that the atom does not exist just because we can’t justify its existence using any of our five senses yet, so many of us justify that God does not exist simply because of our inability to find Him or to establish his existence using our senses. This method of “reasoning” ignores the limits of our physical ability, conversely it also limits the vast potential of our spiritual ability.
The existence of God and religion have nothing to do one with the other. That you may be a Christian or a Muslim is but a choice made based on data examined by you and believed to be true thus accepted as the answer to the question. Regardless of religion there is but one answer out of two possible ones, God either exists or He does not. That religion is based on a combination of story telling and events witnessed by select people, some factual and some perhaps not, is not up for discussion because it is a fact. That a particular religion is right and conversely others wrong is arbitrary and speculative. The real question then still remains, does God exist or not?
As so eloquently stated by Albert Einstein, the laws of physics tell us that cold does not exist, it is merely the absence of heat. Darkness does not exist, it is merely the absence of light. Yet, most people believe that darkness and cold do exist since they can “see” darkness and “feel” cold but, therein we find the limits of our senses. You cannot feel cold you can only feel or sense that heat is missing though you may not be aware of that specific fact it is none the less true. You cannot see darkness for in reality, despite your understanding of what is in your sight, you are actually seeing nothing, you are simply sensing through sight that there is an absence of light. If our perception of reality based solely on our senses can be so warped as to confuse a lack of something real with reality itself, then, how can our senses be trusted to answer such a difficult question?
That evolution can by itself explain the origin of man is but another absurd notion proposed by man based on physical evidence which completely ignores the spiritual evidence that cannot be explained by science. If physical evidence alone is to explain our origin then we are to assume that God has left physical evidence of his existence for us to find or that our creation was but the physical culmination of a set of circumstances and events also rooted in the physical world. Such a humanly or scientifically designed method can only get us to the physical origin of man. Hypothetically one can say that man was either created or otherwise evolved but, from what did man evolve? Regardless of the hypothesis used to begin the investigation there must be an origin, an Alpha if you will. If the physical origin of man can be traced then whatever it is traced to still requires the question as to where that origin came from and, the origin of that origin and, so on and so forth. Nothing can evolve from nothingness, scientifically speaking, therefor I find it more rational to believe in God than to dismiss His existence. The very fact that evolution completely dismisses the spiritual provides me with sufficient basis for the dismissal of such a method. Given that matter cannot just come into existence from nothingness coupled with the lack of spirituality in evolution it is my opinion, based on fact and not faith that, evolution is an incomplete theory which at the very best will result in arriving near the origin of man as a physical being and nothing more. This method cannot and will not answer the most important question. Does God exist?
Spiritual evidence which does exist is usually confronted skeptically by the scientific and humanistic factions of society. Cancers disappearing suddenly from one day to the next have left doctors world wide, in myriads of situations, baffled and without explanation. Phenomena such as suddenly moving objects without apparent natural forces that explain the movement have been documented and cannot be ignored. Precise predictions of future events by people such as Edgar Cayce are still unexplained. Humanists and scientists explain accurate predictions of future events that have not yet happened as a power of our brains that we have not yet completely discovered or understood but, we are talking about future events that have not yet happened and are susceptible to change by our actions at the present moment. To explain such phenomena so simply is to deny that a spiritual sense exists, that nature is not the end all of existence, and that there is much that cannot be understood in the physical sense.
Spiritual advancement is more important to mankinds’ future, in my opinion, than scientific advancement. In reality I believe both can be advanced simultaneously but, I believe we have to give up our arrogant ways as people and accept that much more investigation is needed of the spiritual than is the current trend in the world today. The current trend of humanism and opposition to religion and spiritual enlightenment is a limited theory which will stagnate our evolution as a whole. Advancement of the human race is fragmented when spiritual evidence is ignored and only scientific physical evidence is supported. Given that there must be an origin to all origins I have no choice but to rationally believe in God and thus I have ease with which to confront my mortality. I am at peace with death because I consider it to be a transformation and not an end. I have no need for unnecessary violence for I am at peace. I have no desire for that which is not mine for that which is physical does not attract my attention nearly as much as that which offers me peace. I believe in God for my conscience cannot be explained any other way. There is no scientific explanation for the human conscience just as there is no physical explanation for the origin of man or the universe. The only explanation is God and I will not be so arrogant as to deny his existence while participating in the very creation that He provided me, this thing we call life.
It was empirical reflection that brought independence to the colonies, as much as affliction played a role in the declaration, remedies were numerously proposed and reconciliation was the foremost at the time. As much as usurpation and injustices may have originated the debates, the remedy, was not unanimously collaborative.
The abuses of the king were not levelly applied to all colonies. Quartering of British soldiers was more prevalent in some colonies than in others, tariffs impacted some colonies more than others and, violent interactions between colonists and British soldiers were not uniformly spread throughout.
The tribulation of the colonist was not the cause of the revolution as much as the reality of the inevitable. If we are to accept that the king’s actions were the sole reason for the coup of tyranny then, we must ignore the arduous and lengthy efforts preceding the issuance of the declaration. There was not unanimity in the congregated, there was no relish for war! Clear and conscientious logic is what prevailed and, though the causes of the declaration are clearly laid out as a list of grievances, it was the inescapable truth that only adherence to the laws of nature and God could bring the liberty that lead to the abolishment of the unnatural ties to the monarchy.
So it is no less true now, than it was then, that it is not our tribulations that have stirred our defiance. It is our instinctive desire to be free. The pursuit of happiness is only that, a pursuit. Created equal does not mean remaining equal. As the great Thomas Sowell once wrote ”A confusion of morality with causation may be politically convenient but that does not make the two things one”. Causes promoted by honest men have within their core a strict accounting of consequences, they lack confusion between morality and causation. The causes promoted by those that are only interested in power and fame are inherently flawed by superficial morality and a quest for total acceptance rather than being guided by actual outcomes. Outcomes and positive results are sought by the free minded lovers of liberty. What good do intentions promote when their outcome is contrary to their mission?
Logic and reasoning are not merely related they are the same and without evidence of reasoning within our causes we may only expect our morals to be warped and our outcomes to be dismal. Our President is a great proponent of causation, an advocate of a higher calling if you will. He promotes Just causes but without regard to outcome. History has been around long before our leader was born and history does not agree with the projected outcome of his causes. Logic would dictate that what failed in the past under similar circumstances will reasonably fail again. Our leader speaks reasonably but promotes illogically. He raises taxes on the wealthy though history condemns prior policies of the same to ruin whole economies. He advocates redistribution of wealth though historically this, in prior societies, has failed to remedy poverty. He grows the powers of the governing over those of the governed which again, history has demonstrated to be catastrophic.
Our dissent, not unlike the colonials, is not based on the individual pains these actions create for us. I would venture that some, if not most of us, that do speak out are not yet affected by these actions yet, we are bound by our love of liberty and pursuit of freedom to object. Our leader behaves not like a grounded and sensible man but more like an insolent, he demonstrates apathy to the masses and, dismisses the obvious public disdain for his behavior as that of a select few. It was a call to the adherence of the laws of nature and of God that united the Colonials in defiance of a tyrant and, it is the call of adherence to the same that will unite a splintered America. Learn your history and you shall see that not long ago our disagreements were on just how it was that we were to achieve what we desire. Compare it to now that we disagree on even what it is that we must achieve. We have been divided, not united.
I think it is worthy to note that Kings need not be tyrants as there have been a few good ones however; it is more important to note that tyrants need not be Kings. Whether a tyrant is inherited, chosen, elected, or takes power by force he is never the less a tyrant and to call him by some other name is to confuse morality with causation. I have never seen a better collection of words for describing a king, a tyrant, a man unworthy of a role in leadership than the words written by Thomas Paine,
“Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.”
After watching my President partake of an endeavor that could only benefit a select few during a time when the masses are in need of leadership more than ever I have sadly concluded that no words better fit the man than those of Thomas Paine. I conclude with a small poem I have written which I would like to dedicate to our President and all who in the name of causation act only to sustain their own power and prosperity.
The Tyrant
Braggart of righteousness and sanctimonious lore
Superficial defender of countless decor,
Will speak to no end of that to be done
Will do as required until he has won.
No thought will he pay to the manner of thing
Death by kindness his doctrine will bring.
He’ll do what is needed to whom is no matter,
Of Truth and Power he seeks the latter.
He takes the seat at the head of your table
Proceeds with promises of heavenly fable.
Wicked tongue he possesses for treason
Disguised cleverly by words of reason.
Pay him no mind if freedom you seek
Rely on him not for he is weak.
Pay him mind for judicious sake
Or in a world of slaves you awake.
Be warned good man of this ghastly fellow
His effects are dire though his causes mellow.
Be not duped by his simple verbosity
Less you give him sanction for atrocity.
Be not frightened from what I have spoken
Pay my warning occasional token.
Live free and righteous prosperity seeking
Labor in honesty and God in good keeping.
If an unknown here arrives espousing causation
Demanding upheaval promoting vexation,
Gather the native as well as the migrant,
And
Prepare thee the masses to face the tyrant.
By Carlos Perez
The recent accusations by one of our prior Presidents brought to mind the absurdity of our times while at the same time reminding me of a lesson well learned. A long time ago I had an epiphany of sorts inspired by a brilliant poem written in the late nineteenth century by Diego Vicente Tejera a Cuban poet among other things. Tejera would eventually become the founder of the socialist party in Cuba in 1900 just three years short of his death and, though I have nothing in common with him with regard to political ideology, I thank him for the brilliant literature he left behind. I have, to the best of my ability, translated the poem to English as follows.
BLACK AND WHITE by Diego Vicente Tejera
Two boys in play delight
in a campestral clearing.
!Two boys! the one upright
the other on the ground at him peering.
The one with a ticklish petal
tingles the grounded fellow
who, rolls with laughter
at the tingle of the leafed feather…
The boy of tingled laughter is white
his lighthearted jester black.
Two men furiously clamor
in a campestral clearing.
!Two men! the one erect in hateful manner
the other grounded in hunkered fearing
The hateful one with a ferocious whack
pummels his grounded brethren on the back
who, cries with pain and anger
as his unjust companion attacks…
The raging man is white
his victim black.
The lesson here is not that a white man is whipping a black man while a white and black child play. The lesson is much deeper and like all great pieces of literature is only profound because it is true. The lesson simply is that racism is taught, it is a learned behavior, whether that learning comes directly from other people or from life experiences misinterpreted depends on us.
I agree with Larry Elder the prominent black libertarian when he states that crying “racist” whenever substantive disagreement with our current President occurs is not only irresponsible, it is downright absurd. Here we have the most powerful man in the world, numerous influential cabinet members, successful attorneys, world renowned surgeons, and our surgeon general, all black and yet we are to believe that the very country where all of this has happened is mostly racist.
Black and white elites in coordination with black and white opportunists have long profited in both power and fortune by keeping us divided. The belief that government reigns supreme above and beyond the rights of individuals requires a constant state of struggle. If struggle were to be overcome then there would be no need for such elites to “show us the way” or to provide “social justice”. I see a tactic where some may see a struggle but, I also see a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. I see more and more “minority” conservatives now than ever, I believe the proverbial gig is up for the opportunists and elites. As great men such as Thomas Sowell become more prominent and, the masses of so called “afflicted minorities” witness the achievements of those who break free from the chains of the victimisation mentality Americans of all colors and races will decline the call to struggle. Jimmy Carter is but a weapon employed by the party of division in order to create a diversion during a time when there is no time for such a squandering of our time. I propose that he (President Carter) and it (the tactic) be ignored while real racism be educated to death.
It occurred to me recently that the comment “you lie” by Representative Joe Wilson has been met with sharp criticism by those who would have an epiphany of monumental proportions if they would just stop to think rationally for a minute about the situation. Given the fact that the Congressman acted out so naturally coupled with the lack of credibility of the target of his verbal discharge at the very least a minute instance of rumination is in order. Are they indeed or, are they not, the most religious among politicians those from the conservative right? Are conservatives not widely thought of as the “Christian Fanatics” of our political system? Whether or not they indeed are is not the important thing here, the important question is actually why followers of Christ would choose to come out against a fellow believer in an instance of moral directness not seen in American politics often enough?
Whether or not the occasion lends itself to the type of outburst is not necessarily arbitrary, it is and well should be common knowledge that commotion is not the road best traveled for voicing one’s opinion. However inappropriate the venue may have been the content should not be confused or lost within the context of civility. History has provided us with various examples of “champions” of civility acting out defiantly and in some cases the “agitator” has been proven a model of civility eventually. Civility after all cannot be obtained from tyrannical prevaricators gently, mis-leaders have no tendency even slightly resembling civility in their core for it would be in direct contrast with their character yet they are outwardly civil to no end for this mirage is that which best serves their ultimate goal of deception. Barrack Obama is the very epitome of such a deceiver and Joe Wilson likewise is the very epitome of the greatest among us, the American public. His apparent frustration simply led him to behave as great men do when necessary and only when necessary. Let us not forget the lessons of Christ. When Christ found thieves and degenerates using the church for profit the hypocrisy got the best of him and he lashed out at them ferociously. I dare someone in either political party to demand an apology from GOD. Now, I am not delusional, Joe Wilson is NOT Jesus Christ. The point however is not lost on me, the Republican party has no genuine right to ask this man to apologize and neither do we. He is after all, as great men do, applying great passion to his job. Is this not what we want in our representatives? The Republican party can placate to the left all they want and for as long as they wish and the only fruit that labor will yield is a foolish feeling of betrayal. Christ himself had zero tolerance for snakes, there is no reason why Joe Wilson being a simple civil servant should be any different.
