The First

Good day, Dear Readers,

Today I’m going to discuss one of our most fundamental God-given Rights as Human Beings: the Right to speak our minds and express ourselves.

When the Convention of States held in Philadelphia in 1787 was creating the Constitution of the United States, there were certain concepts that the delegates believed to be so ‘self-evident’ that they didn’t feel the need to explain or expand upon them in that august document. In spite of eloquent articles and pamphlets written, published, and distributed by the likes of Samuel Adams, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, Thomas Paine, and others, they discovered during the Ratification process that many citizens of the new Republic either did not know or did not understand all of the grievances the Colonies had against Britain. Questions even came up about what the “certain inalienable (sic) Rights” beyond “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happyness (sic)” might be that Thomas Jefferson mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. In order to address some of these questions, Congress formed a committee soon after the Ratification of the Constitution for the purpose of further defining the basic Human Rights King George had been violating and that the government of the Republic was meant to protect. The committee determined the most important of those Rights that needed to be enumerated and broke them up into ten separate Amendments to the Constitution. Those Ten Amendments were all Ratified simultaneously and soon became known collectively as “The Bill of Rights.”

The committee that created the Bill of Rights ordered them from most important to least, with the very first Amendment guaranteeing Freedom of Religion, Speech, the Press, to Peaceably Assemble, and to petition the Government to redress grievances. Most people these days simply refer to the First Amendment as, “Freedom of Speech,” but it would be more accurate to refer to it as the “Freedom of Expression Amendment.” This most important Amendment guarantees that people have the Right to Express their Spirituality, Vocalize their Opinions, Disseminate Information…both supportive and critical of the government…in Print, Peaceably Gather with family and neighbors in public spaces to discuss and debate topics of concern, and to bring Grievances to the Government, all without fear of recrimination or reprisal. In fact, the Framers of the Bill of Rights placed that one first because, with very limited exceptions, without the ability to openly Express one’s beliefs or point of view, the other nine Amendments would just be hollow words.

Unfortunately, in the first quarter of the Twenty-first Century, many people have forgotten just how important free and unbridled speech is to our Republic. There have been many attempts to govern, and even completely censor, public speech by creating laws regulating things deemed to be ‘hate speech’ or ‘misinformation’. The problem is, “who decides?” Who decides what is ‘hate speech’? When recognized experts can’t agree on a topic, who decides which side is speaking scientific truth and which is spreading ‘misinformation’? The short answer is, “whomever is in power.” Believe me, I agree completely that exercising the Right to Free Speech is not absolute. No one may speak in such a way that may lead to the physical harm of another person, such as, but not limited to, the classic example of shouting “Fire!” in a crowded venue. Nor may anyone speak in such a way as to incite violence against an individual or group of individuals, or against property of any kind. All Speech is also subject to the laws prohibiting Libel and Slander. But beyond these safeguards, Speech…heck, most forms of Expression…should be Free and unfettered.

What got me thinking about The First is a recent ruling by the Supreme Court. In the 6 to 3 decision of the case, Murthy v. Missouri, the majority opinion ruled that the Plaintiffs, that included the States of Missouri and Louisiana, did not have any legal Standing to sue the Federal Government for pressuring social media platforms to unconstitutionally violate the First Amendment Rights of U. S. Citizens, basically using its power to silence any opposition to the administration’s policies regarding the COVID-19 Pandemic. Since when do “We the People” not have a clear and inexorable Standing on behalf of the First Amendment of the Constitution…or any of the Amendments for that matter. Without the People having an irrevocable Standing in such cases, the Rule of Law goes right out the window.

In addition to the question of Standing, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the majority opinion for this decision, basically said that just because the government may have done this two years ago, there’s no reason to think they’ll do it again, so they shouldn’t be held accountable. That’s like telling someone arrested for drunk driving, “Oh! Even though you crippled a child while driving drunk two years ago, you’ve been clean and sober ever since…a model citizen…so you won’t be held accountable.”

Think that’s hyperbole? Dozens of people had their professional, and even private lives, ruined by the government requested censorship. Their posts weren’t just blocked, they were labeled misinformation and outright lies. Professional and personal reputations were destroyed. Because they wouldn’t kowtow to an ideology they believed was wrong, many of them lost their jobs, and even friends and some family. Even though, in most cases, numerous research studies have since proven that these people were right all along, they still suffer…and no one has been held accountable.

The ‘hate speech’ laws are quite another problem. As far as I am concerned, as long as what is communicated does not meet the limited definition of prohibited speech (you know, causing or calling for physical harm), then it should be allowed, no matter how heinous it may be. One reason is that all Speech must be Free, even Speech with which you disagree, or none of it is. The other reason is that, if you make the idiocy illegal, then you’ll just drive the speakers underground. I want them out in the open, peacefully spewing their nonsense so that we know who they are and we can all point and laugh at them. This is why all ‘hate speech’ laws should be ruled as a violation of The First.

Remember, there is nothing, expressed or implied, anywhere in the Constitution or any of its Amendments that says anyone has a Right to not be offended or not have their feelings hurt.

The bottom line is that I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.

Until next time, Dear Readers, be well…

© 2009, 2024 James P. Rice

Democracy or Republic, Which are We?

Good day, Dear Readers,

For some time now, there has been something that the common citizen of America had been saying that has been bothering me. Phrased several different ways and in a variety of contexts, many people are maintaining that the form of government we have here in the United States of America is a Democracy when in fact we are a Constitutional Republic. Now, in the run-up to the 2024 Presidential Election, the corporate media supporting the Progressive Socialist agenda are accusing anyone who dares to correct the miseducated about our Republic of having been brainwashed by President Donald Trump and of being a “threat to the Democracy.” They even trot out so-called ‘experts’ to support this assertion when, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

Now, you my be asking, “why does this matter?” For one thing, the fact that so many people are wrong is proof that our public education system, particularly in the field of Civics, has been failing the students for at least two generations, and is probably continuing to do so. To explain the next thing, I’ll have to provide some background and an explanation of the differences between the two forms of government.

“Democracy” is often described as being a system where every person has a vote…”one man, one vote” is the common catch phrase. That’s fine as far as it goes, but where education has failed is by not imparting the complete definition of Democracy. In a true Democracy every eligible citizen votes on everything…on every question, proposal, law, and regulation, etc., not just on politicians in elected offices. These votes in a Democracy usually end up being based on popularity, emotion, feelings, and opinion instead of the reasonably researched facts about any proposition.

In a “Republic”, particularly a Constitutional Republic, the eligible voters select people they believe will represent them in the government and protect their Rights, Freedom, and best interests under the Law. The common catch phrase in the case of these Representatives is “people of good moral character”, i.e. people the electorate can trust to fulfill their duties. The systems of a Republic slow down the processes of deliberation and debate so that Reason can be injected into the consideration of any question, proposal, law, or regulation, and the Representatives are limited to what they can do by the foundational Laws, Duties, and Limits on Power established in the Constitution.

The Founders of our nation had broken away from a Parliamentary Monarchy that had been riding roughshod over the Rights of the Colonists, so they wanted to decentralize power as much as possible from a central government and keep most of that power in the various individual States. This resulted in the Articles of Confederation, a weak and even ambiguous document that caused numerous problems. President Washington and several of his advisors realized that the United States would be short lived if this wasn’t changed, so a Convention of the States was convened in Philadelphia in 1787 for the purpose of fixing the Articles of Confederation. The delegates quickly realized that the Articles could not be fixed and needed to be replaced, leading to two different proposals. The proposal known as “The Virginia Plan”, based on the principles of political philosophers John Locke, Montesquieu, and Edward Coke, was chosen.

One of the hallmarks of the new Constitutional Republic they created was that Power was spread across three branches of government…with one branch being further divided into two separate chambers…and a series of checks and balances were codified to prevent any one branch or group from seizing power, while giving the National Government very defined powers and responsibilities. The delegates did not even consider a true Democracy because, as educated persons, they knew that a true Democracy was just one step above Mob Rule. In fact one of my favorite quips about Democracy is, “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.” (Unfortunately, I’ve yet to find the origin of that saying, so I can’t provide an attribution.) They did, however, include a Democratic element. Since the House of Representatives in the Congress was to be the Voice of the People and based on population, each State was broken into Congressional Districts and the eligible voters in each District elected a “person of good moral character” to represent them in Congress.

The Delegates at the Convention further specifically defined how other “Offices of Trust” were to be filled. Since the Senate was to be the Voice of the States in the Congress, the two Senators were to have been selected by the Legislature of the State they represent. The first major victory that the Progressive Socialists had in the early 20th Century was when the public bought their lies about how ‘unfair’ it was that people ‘had no say’ in the selection of their Senators, resulting in the Ratification of the 17th Amendment, creating the election of Senators by popular vote. All along, the people did have a say in the selection of their Senators…in the form of the people they voted into their State Legislature.

Being the Executor and Protector of the Supreme Law of the Land, the President was never supposed to be selected by popular vote; it was supposed to be a blending of the two methods for selecting the members of the two Chambers of Congress and embodied in The Electors, what we now refer to as the Electoral College. Each State was meant to and currently has a number of Electors equal to the number of Representatives plus their two Senators. However, the Delegates believed that it was ‘self-evident’ how the Electors representing the Representatives were supposed to be chosen…each Congressional District was to elect their Elector…that they didn’t bother to spell it out in the Constitution. States quickly found a loophole and their Legislatures started appointing all of the Electors and not just those representing the Senators, thinking it would give the State more power in the Presidency.

Unfortunately, the Progressive Socialists have been targeting the Electoral College for the last three decades and want the President to also be elected by popular vote. The problem lies in one of the reasons the Electors were created in the first place. The Founders knew that if the popular vote was used the four population centers of the States…Philadelphia, New York City, Boston, and Richmond…would control the Presidency, giving the rural citizens of the Nation no say in who holds that office. Fast forward to the 21st century. According to the 2020 U. S. Census, a mere 18 of the 3,243 counties and ‘county-equivalents’ have sufficient population to control who lives in the White House, and all 18 are aligned with the same political party, giving that party control of the Presidency for the foreseeable future and making the other 3,225 counties and ‘county-equivalents’ nothing but serfs to the 18. That’s what true Democracy gets you and why the Founders created a Constitutional Representative Republic.

If you still don’t believe that we’re in a Republic and not a Democracy, let’s go to the words of some of America’s greatest themselves:

According to Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s Delegates, a woman called out to Benjamin Franklin as they were leaving on the final day of the Convention and asked him what sort of government they created. Franklin replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.” – Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States of America

“Republicanism is not the phantom of a deluded imagination: on the contrary, that under no form of government, will laws be better supported — liberty and property better secured — or happiness be more effectually dispensed to mankind.” – George Washington in a letter to Edmund Pendleton, 22 Jan 1795 AD

“In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition.” – Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 29

“The genius of republican liberty seems to demand on one side, not only that all power should be derived from the people, but that those intrusted (sic) with it should be kept in independence on the people, by a short duration of their appointments; and that even during this short period the trust should be placed not in a few, but a number of hands.” – James Madison in Federalist 37

“In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people.” – James Madison in Federalist 51

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.” – John Adams in a letter to Jonathan Jackson, 2 Oct 1790

“The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind.” – Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William Hunter, 11 Mar 1790

“It was by the sober sense of our citizens that we were safely and steadily conducted from monarchy to republicanism, and it is by the same agency alone we can be kept from falling back.” – Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Arthur Campbell, 1797

“If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.” – Thomas Jefferson in his first Inaugural Address, 1801

“The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen, in his person and property, and in their management.” – Thomas Jefferson in a letter to H. Tompkinson (a.k.a. Samuel Kercheval), 12 July 1816

“I feel how weak and fruitless must be any words of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering to you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save. I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours, to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of Freedom.” – Abraham Lincoln in a condolence letter to Mrs. Bixby of Boston upon the loss of her sons in service of the Union Army, 21 Nov 1864

“…and to the Republic for which it stands…” – The Pledge of Allegiance

There are many, many more examples of those who came before us identifying the United States as a Republic and not a Democracy. And this brings me to ‘the other thing’. This attempt to twist and misidentify our nation is actually part of a long term plan by the Progressive Socialists to erode and degrade the Constitution until it is weak enough to be replaced with the oligarchy they desire. Don’t take my word for it. Progressive Socialist icons such as Hebert Croly, Woodrow Wilson, Rexford Tugwell, Harold Ickes, and Franklin D. Roosevelt all wrote extensively about this plan in their personal papers. Just look it up.

I have and will continue to stipulate that our Republic has Democratic elements in how it works…at the State level more so than the Federal level…but that does not make us a Democracy. Look at it this way, in a Democracy, all you would have to do is get a simple majority…50.01% of the voters…to agree to make something legal. Without the protections of a Constitutional Republic, it could be anything, even something as heinous as slavery.

Think about it.

Until next time, Dear Readers, be well…

© 2009, 2024 James P. Rice

A ‘Civil’ War

My fellow Americans, we are at war.

No, I’m not talking about the ‘War on Drugs’ or the ‘War on Terrorism.’ I’m not talking about another ‘Cold War’ or a war using all the latest technological horrors our ingenuity can devise. What I’m talking about is something far more insidious that is potentially more destructive to our society than all the car bombs in the Middle East. I’m talking about a war on Civility.

As the Baby Boom Generation's Beat Culture slid into the Hippie Culture and the Age of Aquarius, America’s youth began to openly shrug off the cultural trappings of their parents and grandparents. They dismissed the formalities of interaction used by the previous generations as “hollow”, “meaningless”, and even “dishonest”. They believed that ‘finishing school’ etiquette helped prop up a class system that was designed to make the rich richer and keep the poor under heel. Therefore, they embraced a rebellious culture of brutally frank honesty with no regard for the effects of their words.

To this day, many of the self-proclaimed ‘intelligentsia’ wrap themselves in a cloak made from the words of the First Amendment and practice this crassly insensitive form of communication. In daily conversation, they use language so scurrilous it would blister the ears of a merchant marine, no matter the setting or the age of casual bystanders. In many businesses, not only is it acceptable to use language that would have gotten you fired as recently as the 1980s, but often individuals who try to maintain a polite and respectful vocabulary are either viewed as ‘soft’, or are assumed to be mocking the listener. Often, if someone tries to express discomfort with the abusive language used by someone around them, the person using the vulgarities starts screaming “censorship” and that the person complaining is trying to deprive them of their Right to Free Speech.

It gets even worse if a discussion or debate is underway. When the members of this literati caste find themselves hearing views opposing their own, they often launch immediately into a verbal personal attack on that speaker, especially when said speaker has disproved the literati's position. In most cases, they will either attack with outrageous accusations and offensive name-calling, or they simply spew forth a stream of invectives as loud as they can in an attempt to ‘shout down’ the opposition. Often, they use both tactics together. In any case, at no time do these ‘enlightened’ members of the ‘tolerant’ ranks afford the speaker with the courtesy of allowing her or him to present their case, then rebutting it logically with facts and observations.

When their beliefs are questioned, the intelligentsia usually follows up by 'gaslighting' the speaker, loudly and publicly accusing them of doing what they themselves were doing all along. They play an intellectually dishonest game of political brinkmanship in an attempt to gain as much sympathy from the general public as they can, while demonizing the person who had the audacity to disagree with them.

When these bastions of the social conscience try to hide behind their Unalienable Right to Free Speech, they fail to acknowledge the flip side of that coin. For every Right granted by the Creator and enumerated in the Constitution and its Amendments, there are implied Responsibilities and Consequences. The most commonly used example of a limitation to the Free Speech clause in the First Amendment is that one can’t stand up in a crowded theater and shout, “Fire!” if there is no fire. That isn’t exactly true. We actually do have the Right to do so, but we also have the Responsibility to consider the Consequences of our actions and not casually do something that may cause injury to others. If we choose to ignore that responsibility, then we must accept the consequences of our actions, which in this case could mean a fine, jail time, or even civil penalties sought by those injured by the irresponsible act. Basically, it comes down to an old adage I like to use: “Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do it.”

When the late George Carlin came out with his routine, “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television,” he created an iconic comedy performance…as well as the basis for the Supreme Court ruling that established that the FCC did have the authority to prohibit the broadcast of ‘indecent’ material over the public airwaves during the hours when children were likely to be in the audience. However, his views of profanity totally dismissed the value of what I like to call, “Civilization Lubrication.” As Robert Heinlein once wrote,

“Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid excessive wear. Honorifics and formal politeness provide lubrication where people rub together. Often the very young, the untraveled, the naïve, the unsophisticated deplore these formalities as ‘empty,’ ‘meaningless,’ or ‘dishonest,’ and scorn the use of them. No matter how ‘pure’ their motives, they thereby throw sand into machinery that does not work too well at best.” (1)

Of course, considering that Carlin also once stated in one of his routines,

“I have absolutely no sympathy for human beings whatsoever. None. And no matter what kind of problem humans are facing, whether it’s natural or man-made, I always hope it gets worse.” (2)

it’s very possible he was intentionally ‘throwing sand into the machinery.’ This has been going on for several decades, but there are two very good examples of this rampant incivility that occurred in 2009.

The first example happened on Wednesday, 20 May 2009. Political pundit and commentator Glenn Beck was invited to appear on a segment of the daytime television chat show, The View. On his radio program on Tuesday, Mr. Beck related a personal anecdote of a chance encounter with two of The View’s stars that happened on an Amtrak train about two weeks earlier under unusual circumstances. When Mr. Beck appeared on the show, he was suffering from a stomach flu and was trying to remain polite and respectful since he was in, as he put it, ‘their house.’ As soon as the segment began, the two individuals he encountered on the train attacked him…obsessing for over seven minutes about who addressed who first on the train. They demanded explanations and apologies for some imagined sleight, then refused to let him reply. They both called him a ‘liar’ multiple times with one of them going so far as to refer to him as, “…a lying sack of dog mess.” The other went so far as to upbraid him for failing to check his facts before reporting a story, even though he had simply been relating a personal anecdote as he remembered it and not reporting a news story, and he has stated numerous times over the years that he is a commentator, not a reporter. All through this baseless attack, Mr. Beck reacted with civility and dignity, refusing to lower himself to the level of his attackers.

The second example happened on Thursday, 21 May 2009. President Barack Obama delivered an address at the National Archives defending his recent decisions on national security. The speaker who immediately followed The President was former Vice-President Dick Cheney who delivered an address that supported the national security policies implemented by the Bush Administration, and criticizing the Obama Administration's reduction of the security measures implemented by his predecessor. Unfortunately, instead of using this as a wonderful opportunity to open up a discussion on the merits of both speeches, a user of the online social network, Facebook, decided to create a page in support of, “Telling Dick Cheney to shut the hell up.” In other words, those Oh So Tolerant individuals who scream ‘censorship’ every time someone asks them to stop using profanity around children have decided that the former Vice-President of the United States no longer has a Right to Free Speech just because he disagrees with the current President.

In fact, my previous post in this blog contains another perfect example of this behavior. In it, I shared an article by respected historian, Victor Davis Hanson, that illustrates just how the the Progressive apologists for the terrorist organization, Hamas, are using these tactics to blame Israel for the atrocities Hamas perpetrated upon them and to convince the public that Israel is the villain, not Hamas. They are going out of their way to project Hamas' inhuman behavior onto Israel and accuse them of doing to Arabs and Muslims what Hamas has in fact been doing to Jews since their inception. Simply stated, the truth doesn't support their political narrative so they have to destroy it.

So, what makes this incivility “potentially more destructive to our society than all the car bombs in the Middle East” you ask? It’s this: the incivility into which American culture has been plunged is a wedge that has divided the country into ‘Us’ and ‘Them,’ ‘Left’ and ‘Right,’ ‘Red States’ and ‘Blue States,’ ‘Originalists’ and ‘Progressives.’ As long as feelings and opinions are regarded as legitimate rebuttle to hard facts and figures; as long as any voices are silenced and prevented from presenting their arguments reasonably, logically, and courteously; we will never be able to span the chasm between us and reunite as One Nation. If we do not heal this divide, the United States will be finished. As the old adage says, "United we stand, Divided we fall."

It is time to heal this country, not separate it further. Put down the donkey and elephant banners; put away your copy of, “Snappy Comebacks to Stupid Questions”; take a deep breath and let the person across from you finish his or her thought before you reply…and occasionally pause to let that other person either ask questions or rebut your points. The important thing is to stop the shouting and name-calling and begin to dialogue with one another. There is nothing wrong with being passionate about your beliefs, just keep in mind that the person on the other side of the argument also has the right to be passionate about their beliefs. Remember that there is a difference between being passionate and being emotional, so leave emotions out of the discussion. Also remember that one can be passionate and still present a logical argument supported by facts. And finally, before you come to the table, triple check your facts to make certain you are not basing your arguments on hearsay, innuendo, opinion, or urban myth. I’m always open to other points of view, but you’d better be able to support your position with cold, hard facts or I reserve the right to point out your errors!

Now, go out there and discuss, debate, and decide. Keep an open mind and end the War on Civility. Just stop all the bickering, gaslighting, name-calling, and shouting!

Until next time, be well, Dear Ones!

(1) Time Enough for Love by Robert A. Heinlein © 1973 Robert A. Heinlein

(2) Life Is Worth Losing by George Carlin © 2005 George Carlin

© 2009, 2023 James P. Rice

Simply Me (Continued)

Topic #1 - Philosophy (continued)

Chapter 2 (continued)

The God of Abraham: Judaism (continued)

Welcome back! Let's get back to Jacob, the third of the Three Patriarchs in Judaism.

Jacob dwelt in Harran for 20 years: Laban had tricked Jacob into working for him for 14 years for the hand of his youngest daughter, then Jacob worked for another 6 years to build up his flocks. Finally, God told Jacob that it was time to return to the land of his father. Taking his wives, children, servants, and flocks, Jacob left without warning, prompting Laban to pursue him. On his way to the land of Seir in Canaan, where Esau dwelt, Jacob got into a wrestling match with a mysterious being at the ford of the Jabbok. They wrestled all night and, at dawn, when he couldn’t defeat Jacob, the being touched Jacob on the sinew of the thigh, leaving Jacob with a limp. Realizing that the being was some sort of divinity (an angel of God, or maybe even God Himself), Jacob agreed to release him only if he blessed Jacob. The being replied, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.” (Genesis 32:28)

During his sojourn in Harran, Israel acquired four wives and twelve children; eleven sons and one daughter. His wives were: Rachel (the woman for whom he worked 14 years); Leah (Rachael’s older sister); Bilha (Rachel’s servant); and Zilpah (Leah’s servant). Jacob ‘s children were: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Dinah, and Joseph. (Genesis 29:31 - 30:24) It is possible that Israel had mor daughters, but Dinah is the only one mentioned in Genesis. Once they returned to Canaan, Rachel became pregnant again. As Israel was moving all of his people and flocks to Ephrath (modern day Bethlehem), Rachel went into labor and died as she gave birth to Israel’s twelfth son, Benjamin. (Genesis 35:16-20) To this day, Rachel’s Tomb outside of Bethlehem is a popular site for pilgrimages and prayers.

Israel continued his journey, eventually reuniting with his father, Isaac, at Elonei Mamre, an important market fair north of Hebron in Judea. Isaac lived to 180. When he died, Israel and Esau buried him in the Cave of Machpelah in Hebron, alongside Abraham. Talmudic researchers believe that, at this meeting, Esau gave the genealogical records of his House to Israel, who incorporated them into his own family records. Moses would eventually augment and publish Esau’s records, and they would become Chapter 36 of the Book of Genesis.

Of all his sons, Israel’s favorite was Rachel’s firstborn, Joseph. Because of their father’s favoritism, Joseph’s half-brothers were jealous of him and often taunted him. When he was 17, Israel gave Joseph an ornate robe or coat as a reward for relating the misdeeds of his brothers to his father. Upon seeing this, the jealousy felt by the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah turned to hate. When Joseph began to have dreams that seemed to indicate that his brothers would all bow before him, they began to conspire against him. When Israel heard of the dreams, he chastised Joseph saying, “What is this dream you had? Will your mother and I and your brothers actually come and bow down to the ground before you?” However, Israel continued to consider Joseph’s dreams. (Genesis 37:1-11)

Sometime later, all of Joseph’s brothers, except Benjamin, were tending Israel’s flocks near Shenchem, and Israel decided to send Joseph down to check their progress and report back. When Joseph arrived, he discovered that they had moved the flocks several miles away to Dothan, so he followed them. As Joseph approached, the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah saw him and decided to kill him. Reuben, Israel’s firstborn by Leah, heard this and tried to rescue Joseph saying, “Let us not take his life!” He went on to suggest that they throw him into a nearby dry cistern with the thought of later returning Joseph to their father. When Joseph arrived, his brothers grabbed him, stripped off his ornate robe, and threw him into the cistern. As they were eating, a caravan of Ishmaelites arrived from Gilead on their way to Egypt. Judah had the idea to sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites, so they did and received twenty shekels of silver. When the caravan arrived in Egypt, Joseph was sold to the Captain of the Pharaoh’s Guard.

When Reuben returned and discovered that Joseph was gone, he became distraught. They all then decided to slaughter a goat and cover Joseph’s robe with the goat’s blood. Returning to Hebron, they brought the bloody robe to Israel and told him that Joseph had been devoured be some ferocious beast. Israel became extremely upset and mourned Joseph for many days, refusing to be comforted. (Genesis 37:12-36)

That's all for now. Nexgt time, we'll finish up with Jacob/Israel and discuss the Twelve Tribes of Israel. Until then, be well!

Simply Me (Continued)

Topic #1 - Philosophy (continued)

Chapter 2 (continued)

The God of Abraham: Judaism

In Judaism, Abraham is known as ,Avraham Avinu, which means, “our Father Abraham.” This honorific signifies that he is both, the biological progenitor of the Jews, and the Father of modern Judaism. In other words, Abraham was the first Jew. His story is traditionally read during the five weekly Torah readings.

According to Jewish traditions, God created heaven and earth for the sake of the piety of Abraham. After the Great Flood, he was the only one among the pious to solemnly swear to never forsake the Lord. Abraham studied the Ways of God in the house of Noah and Shem, continuing the line of High Priest from them. This position he passed down to his great-grandson, Levi, and his descendants in perpetuity. Also in this tradition, Abraham is one of the Three Patriarchs, along with his son Isaac, and his grandson Jacob (who would later be renamed, Israel). The Jewish faith remembers these three by referring to God as, “Elohei Avraham, Elohei Yitzchaq, ve Elohei Ya’aqov,” or, “God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob,” and never the God of any other prophets or luminaries in Judaism.

When Isaac was 60 years old and had been married to Rebekah for 20 years, Jacob and his twin brother, Esau were born. During the pregnancy, Rebekah was uncomfortable and went before God to ask why she was suffering. It was then she was given the prophecy that twins were fighting in her womb and that they would continue to be at odds with each other their entire lives, even after they became two separate nations. The prophecy also said, “one people will be stronger than the other, and the elder will end up serving the younger.” According to Jewish tradition, Esau was born first, covered with red hair as if he were wearing a hairy garment. Jacob came out immediately after, grasping Esau’s heel. According to Strong’s Concordance, the Hebrew name, Ya’aqov, means, “heel-catcher” or “supplanter.”

As they matured, the boys exhibited very different personalities. Esau became a skilled hunter and a man of the outdoors, while Jacob was content to remain at home among the tents. Their parents loved both of their children, but Isaac favored Esau, while Rebekah favored Jacob. When they were older, Jacob was preparing some stew when Esau came in and declared that he was famished. He asked for some of the ‘red stew’ from Jacob, who said that he would give Esau some, provided Esau sold Jacob his birthright as firstborn. Esau said, “Look, I am about to die. What good is the birthright to me?” He then swore to Jacob, selling his birthright for the price of a bowl of stew.

Years later, Isaac’s vision was failing him as he got older. He called for Esau, telling him to gather his bow and quiver and go get some wild game for him. He told Esau to, “prepare me the kind of tasty meal I like and bring it to me to eat, so that I may give you my blessing before I die.” Rebekah heard this and, remembering the prophecy that her older son would serve her younger, realized that this must mean Jacob would receive Isaac’s blessing. So, after Esau left for the hunt, she went to Jacob and told him what she’d heard. She told Jacob to gather two goats from the flock so that she could prepare a meal for Isaac, then he would serve it to his father and receive the blessing for himself. In spite of his fears that Isaac would recognize the deception because Esau was much hairier than he was, he did as his mother instructed. When the savory meat was ready, Rebekah dressed Jacob in Esau’s garments and laid garments across his arms and neck to simulate Esau’s hairy skin. Isaac was suspicious because of Jacob’s voice, but the disguise ultimately worked and Isaac blessed Jacob, saying, “May God give you Heaven’s dew and Earth’s richness-an abundance of grain and new wine. May nations serve you and peoples bow down to you. Be lord over your brothers, and may the sons of your mother bow down to you. May those who curse you be cursed and may those who bless you be blessed.” Esau was furious because Jacob had first taken his birthright, and then his blessing, so he decided that, upon his father’s death, he would kill his brother. When she heard about what Esau said, Rebekah sent Jacob to live with her brother, Laban the Aramean, in Harran until enough time had passed for Esau to forget what Jacob had done. (Genesis Chapter 27)

Next time, we'll continue our look at Judaism with more on Jacob. Until then, be well!

The Electoral College, Part 3

Welcome back! Let’s dive right in…

The Electoral College Today

The first thing we have to get straight right now is WE DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY!! WE LIVE IN A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC!!

The Constitution, as a whole, was designed to protect the Rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. It is a document designed to specifically limit the scope of government while protecting the Natural Rights of the individual. James Madison wrote, "Those who framed and ratified the Constitution believed that as power was less likely to be abused by majorities in representative Govts. than in democracies, where the people assembled in mass, and less likely in the larger than in the smaller communities, under a representative Govt. inferred also, that by dividing the powers of Govt. and thereby, enlarging the practicable sphere of Govt. unjust majorities, would be formed with still more difficulty, and be therefore the less to be dreaded."(8)

One of the most important parts of the distinction between a Republican form of government and a Democracy is that one of the purposes of the Electoral College is to prevent "an interested and overbearing majority" (2) and the "mischiefs of faction" (2) in our electoral system. A faction was defined as "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." (2) What was then called republican government, as opposed to direct democracy, combined with the principles of federalism (with distribution of voter rights and separation of government powers) would countervail against factions. Basically, the Founders viewed direct democracy as one step above mob rule, that it would lead to either the tyranny of the majority or an oligarchy.

Regrettably, adopting the Winner-Take-All method of selecting Electors didn’t countervail against factions. In fact, it had the opposite effect of encouraging the rise of political factions and making the Electors nothing more than mouthpieces for the two dominant political parties. The Electoral College was supposed to prevent the population centers of the biggest cities from making the voices of the less-populated areas of the country inconsequential. It was supposed to make certain each State had an equal voice. Except for four elections, it hasn’t made a difference.(9)

Now, as mentioned in Part 1, the voices clamoring for the elimination have become more vocal since the 2016 Presidential Election. During the 91st Congress, a Constitutional Amendment was proposed to do just that. From 1969 to 1971, Representative Emmanuel Celler (D-New York), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Senator Birch Bayh (D-Indiana) worked to replace the Electoral College with a ‘plurality system’ based on the National Popular Vote. In this system, the pair of candidates who had received the highest number of votes would win the presidency and vice presidency, provided they won at least 40% of the national popular vote. The word "pair" was defined as "two persons who shall have consented to the joining of their names as candidates for the offices of President and Vice President." (10) The proposition passed the House of Representatives and was passed on to the Senate. On September 8, 1970, the Senate began debating the measure. It was quickly filibustered by a coalition of 3 Democrat and 3 Republican Senators. On September 29, 1970, after two failed attempts at cloture, the Senate Majority Leader, Mike Mansfield (D-Montana) moved to lay the proposal aside so that the Senate could attend to other business. The proposal was never considered again and died when the 91st Congress ended on January 3, 1971. One other attempt was made on March 22, 1977, when President Jimmy Carter wrote a letter to Congress suggesting a number of reforms. In it, he wrote, “My fourth recommendation is that the Congress adopt a Constitutional amendment to provide for direct popular election of the President.”(11) Carter’s proposal didn’t go anywhere.

In 2008, National Popular Vote, Inc. began efforts to pass the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, an agreement among States that they would each pledge their Electoral Votes to whichever Presidential Candidate won the national popular vote. This is an attempt to bypass Congress and the Constitutional Amendment process to enact a national popular vote for the office of the President. As of March 2019, twelve states and the District of Columbia have signed the pact, totaling 181 Electoral Votes. The Pact will go into effect when enough States totaling 270 Electoral Votes have passed and signed it.(12) Some Constitutional scholars believe that Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution requires Congressional consent before such a compact could be enforced. Attempts to implement the Pact without Congressional approval could be met with court challenges on a Constitutional basis.(13)

When the 116th Congress convened on January 3, 2019, Representative Steve Cohen (D-Tennessee) introduced a joint resolution proposing a Constitutional Amendment eliminating the Electoral College and replacing it with the popular vote for President and Vice President. While the Bayh-Celler Amendment proposed during the 91st Congress required that the winning candidate acquire 40% of the popular vote, the Cohen Resolution only requires a candidate to have the “greatest number of votes” to be elected. As of March 2019, no action has been taken on the resolution.

In both High School and College, I was taught that the Electoral College was created because of the distances involved between the States and the difficulties of long-distance communication. I accepted that my instructors knew what they were talking about. However, years later, I started hearing things that contradicted that view, so I began to do my own research. After spending years researching and weighing the subject, and weighing both sides of the discussion, I came to the conclusion that the educational system had failed me on this subject, that the Electoral College had been perverted from it’s original intent, and that a Constitutional Amendment was necessary, not to eliminate the Electoral College, but to reform it and put in place the district-based system the Founders originally had in mind.

I hope this three-part article has given you food for thought. Until next time, be good to each other!



Resources:

(1) Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #68

(2) James Madison in Federalist #10

(3) "Resolves of the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Passed at Their Session, which Commenced on Wednesday, the Thirty First of May, and Ended on the Seventeenth of June, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty. Published Agreeably to Resolve of 16th January, 1812. Boston, Russell & Gardner, for B. Russell, 1820" – via Google Books

(4) "How the Electoral College Became Winner-Take-All" - Devin McCarthy, PhD PolySci, Duke University

(5) Chief Justice Robert Jackson, Ray v. Blair, dissent, 1952

(6) "Founders Online: James Madison to George Hay, 23 August 1823". Archived from the original on May 25, 2017.

(7) “Draft of a Resolution for the Legislature of New York for the Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, [29 January 1802],” Founders Online, National Archives, version of January 18, 2019"

(8) “James Madison to Unknown, re majority governments, December 1834,” Founders Online, National Archives, version of January 18, 2019

(9) 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016

(10) "Text of Proposed Amendment on Voting". The New York Times. April 30, 1969

(11) “Jimmy Carter Letter to Congress, Jimmy Carter, March 22, 1977”

(12) www.nationalpopularvote.com

(13) Electoral College Reform Congressional Research Service - Thomas H. Neale, November 23, 2014

The Electoral College, Part 2

Let’s jump right back into the Electoral College…

Unfortunately, some States decided that the favorite Presidential candidate among the people in their State would have a much better chance if all of the Electors selected by their state were sure to vote the same way...a "general ticket" of electors pledged to a party candidate. (4) Thus, the Electors chosen by the state were no longer free agents, independent thinkers, or deliberative representatives. They became "voluntary party lackeys and intellectual non-entities." (5) Once one state took that strategy, the others felt compelled to follow suit in order to compete for the strongest influence on the election. (4)

When two of the most important architects of the Electoral College, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, saw the “general ticket” method of selecting Electors being implemented by some States, they protested strongly. Madison and Hamilton both made it clear that this approach violated the spirit of the Constitution. According to Hamilton, the selection of the President should be "made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station." (1) Hamilton also maintained that the electors were to analyze the list of potential presidents and select the best one. He also used the term "deliberate". Hamilton considered a pre-pledged Elector to violate the spirit of Article II of the Constitution insofar as such electors could make no "analysis" or "deliberate" concerning the candidates. Madison agreed completely, stating that when the Constitution was written, all of its authors assumed individual Electors would be elected in their districts and it was inconceivable a "general ticket" of Electors dictated by a State would ever replace the concept. In fact, in a letter to George Hay, Madison wrote, "The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was [later] exchanged for the general ticket." (6) This became known as the 'Winner-Take-All' method. The Founders assumed when they wrote Article II, Section 1, that Electors would be elected by the voters of their district and that Elector was to be free to analyze and deliberate regarding who is best suited to be President. Madison and Hamilton were so upset by what they viewed as a complete distortion of the original intent that they advocated a Constitutional Amendment to prevent anything other than the district plan: "the election of Presidential Electors by districts, is an amendment very proper to be brought forward," Madison told George Hay in 1823. (6) Hamilton went further and actually drafted an Amendment to the Constitution mandating the district plan for selecting Electors. (7)

Starting in 1789, the States used a combination of the district-based plan, the Winner-Take-All plan, and direct appointment by the State Legislatures to select their Electors. Since 1836, statewide Winner-Take-All popular voting for Electors has been the nearly universal practice. As of 2016, Maine (since 1972) and Nebraska (since 1996) use the district-based plan, with two at-large Electors assigned to support the winner of the statewide popular vote.

*WHEW!* That's a lot of background! And this was just a 'short' summary...the 'broad strokes' if you will. So, then, this brings us up to the present. Next time, we’ll address the current condition of the Electoral College.



Resources:

(1) Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #68

(2) James Madison in Federalist #10

(3) "Resolves of the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Passed at Their Session, which Commenced on Wednesday, the Thirty First of May, and Ended on the Seventeenth of June, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty. Published Agreeably to Resolve of 16th January, 1812. Boston, Russell & Gardner, for B. Russell, 1820" – via Google Books

(4) "How the Electoral College Became Winner-Take-All" - Devin McCarthy, PhD PolySci, Duke University

(5) Chief Justice Robert Jackson, Ray v. Blair, dissent, 1952

(6) "Founders Online: James Madison to George Hay, 23 August 1823". Archived from the original on May 25, 2017.

(7) “Draft of a Resolution for the Legislature of New York for the Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, [29 January 1802],” Founders Online, National Archives, version of January 18, 2019"

(8) “James Madison to Unknown, re majority governments, December 1834,” Founders Online, National Archives, version of January 18, 2019

(9) 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016

(10) "Text of Proposed Amendment on Voting". The New York Times. April 30, 1969

(11) “Jimmy Carter Letter to Congress, Jimmy Carter, March 22, 1977”

I'm Baaaack! - This Time, The Electoral College!

Good day, friends and family!

Well, it's been three years and a bit over a month since my last post. Unfortunately, things got away from me, but I'm back now. I'll get back to Simply Me soon, but today, I want to address something that is in the news cycle right now: the Electoral College.

Since the founding of our Republic, we have heard rumblings from one political group or another about eliminating the Electoral College. Their reasons have been everything from, "the Electoral College propped up slavery," to, "the Electoral College diminishes the power of the individual vote in more populous states." Since the 2016 Presidential election, those voices have become more wide-spread, especially in the last few weeks as politicians have begun to declare their candidacy for the 2020 election. This is why I felt it is time to have a discussion about the Electoral College. I'll try to keep it as short as possible, but it IS going to be a long one, so please bear with me.

BACKGROUND

The Electoral College is established in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States. It states, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector." As you can see, from the start, it was intended that the States would individually decide how the Electors were chosen. The Founders made several assumptions when they established the Electoral College, chief among these that individual Electors would be elected by the voters on a district-by-district basis, allowing for the widest electorate allowed in each State; and that each individual would, "exercise independent judgment when voting, deliberating with the most complete information available in a system that over time, tended to bring about a good administration of the laws passed by Congress." (1) It was also believed that this would enable the choice of the President to reflect the “sense of the people” at a particular time, not the dictates of organized factions, a cabal in a “pre-established body” such as Congress or the State legislatures, and independent of the influence of “foreign powers”. (1) The Founders also believed that "a small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated [tasks]," (1) as well as preventing someone with a talent for "low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity" (1) attaining office in spite of having no other qualifications.

Unfortunately, this didn't last long. Starting with the election of 1796, two political parties had emerged: the Federalist Party, backing John Adams, and the Democratic-Republican Party, backing Thomas Jefferson. Then, the original Electoral plan of having the runner up in the Presidential election being selected to be Vice President fell apart in the 1800 election when Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied in Electoral votes. This required the election of the President and Vice President to be decided by the House of Representatives. The Federalist Party was upset at being shut out of the Presidency this election, so they decided to try to embarrass Jefferson by electing Burr. The House was deadlocked for 35 ballots. On the 36th, Jefferson won when Alexander Hamilton, the leader of the Federalist Party, voted for Jefferson because he hated Burr's personal character more than he hated Jefferson's policies. This led to the proposal, passing, and ratification of the XIIth Amendment, which required separate ballots for President and Vice President, just in time for the 1804 election.

Over the years, the States tried different methods of selecting Electors. The Founders assumed this would take place by district, and that plan was carried out in many states until the 1880s. For example, in Massachusetts in 1820, the rule stated, "the people shall vote by ballot, on which shall be designated who is voted for as an Elector for the district." (3) In other words, the people voted for their local Elector on their ballot, whom they trusted later to cast a responsible vote for President, and not for the Presidential candidate himself.

That’s all for now. Come back tomorrow for Part 2.



Resources:

(1) Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #68

(2) James Madison in Federalist #10

(3) "Resolves of the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Passed at Their Session, which Commenced on Wednesday, the Thirty First of May, and Ended on the Seventeenth of June, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty. Published Agreeably to Resolve of 16th January, 1812. Boston, Russell & Gardner, for B. Russell, 1820" – via Google Books

(4) "How the Electoral College Became Winner-Take-All" - Devin McCarthy, PhD PolySci, Duke University

(5) Chief Justice Robert Jackson, Ray v. Blair, dissent, 1952

(6) "Founders Online: James Madison to George Hay, 23 August 1823". Archived from the original on May 25, 2017.

(7) “Draft of a Resolution for the Legislature of New York for the Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, [29 January 1802],” Founders Online, National Archives, version of January 18, 2019"

(8) “James Madison to Unknown, re majority governments, December 1834,” Founders Online, National Archives, version of January 18, 2019

(9) 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016

(10) "Text of Proposed Amendment on Voting". The New York Times. April 30, 1969

(11) “Jimmy Carter Letter to Congress, Jimmy Carter, March 22, 1977”
version of January 18, 2019

Simply Me (continued)

Topic #1 - Philosophy (continued)

Chapter 2 (continued)

The God of Abraham

YHWH…Yahweh…Jehovah…Allah…or simply, God.  If you are a religious person who practices monotheism (the worship of a single Deity), and you address your particular Creator by one or more of these names, then, no matter which you use, you are in all probability a member of one of three specific faiths: Christianity, Islam, or Judaism.  The first two are the first and second largest religions in the world, while the third is the twelfth largest.  Judaism is the oldest of the three, while Islam is the youngest.  They each agree with one or both of the others on various points, and disagree on even more; but there is one point on which they all three agree: they were the same religion up until the life of a Hebrew man who was named Abram upon his birth, but who, in his later years, was given the name, “Abraham,” by the Deity he worshipped.

So, just who was this Abram/Abraham?  Well, all we know of him is what was passed down through Hebrew oral tradition, and later documented in the Book of Genesis…also known as the First Book of: the Torah, the Pentateuch, the Old Testament, and the Books of Moses.  In it, we are told that Abraham:

• was a direct descendant of Noah through Noah’s son, Shem;
• was born approximately 292 years after the Great Flood;
• was a pious, devout man who always answered the call of the Lord;
• was married to his half-sister, Sarai (whom God would later rename, “Sarah”);
• became exceedingly wealthy due to a ‘misunderstanding’ with Egypt’s Pharaoh about whether Sarai was his sister or his wife;
• was the uncle of Lot;
• saved Lot’s life twice: once by rescuing him from a hostile force that had taken him hostage; and once by bargaining with God to spare the lives of any righteous people who may have been living in Sodom and Gomorrah when God had decided to destroy those two cities;
• received four promises from God:

1. that God would make Abram “…into a great nation;”
2. that God would give all the land of Canaan to all of Abram’s offspring (descendants);
3. that, even though Abram and Sarai were old and childless, God would make Abraham’s descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky or as the grains of sand on the seashore;
4. and that Ishmael, Abraham’s son with one of Sarah’s slaves, would not be forgotten; that he would be a great nation in his own right and would be the father of twelve rulers;

• fathered his first son, Ishmael, with Sarah’s slave, Hagar, at Sarah’s encouragement;
• fathered his heir, Isaac, with Sarah 14 years after the birth of Ishmael;
• had his faith tested by God, who commanded Abraham to offer his young son, Isaac, as a burnt sacrifice.  God stopped the sacrifice before the boy could be harmed.

In Jewish and Christian tradition, Abraham was the first of the three Patriarchs of the Israelites, with his son, Isaac, and his grandson, Jacob, being the second and third.  Jacob, whose name would be changed by God to, “Israel,” was the father of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, and whose direct descendants would include Moses, through his son, Levi, and the Israelite Kings David and Solomon, through his son, Judah.  Christian tradition holds that Jesus is also a direct descendant of Jacob/Israel through King David.

This is where the schism occurs between Judaism/Christianity and Islam.  While Islamic tradition holds that all of the above were Prophets of Allah (God); that Abraham, Isaac, and Israel were Patriarchs of the Israelites; this tradition maintains that Abraham’s oldest son, Ishmael, was also one of the Patriarchs of the Israelites, and was in fact Abraham’s favorite son and true heir.  Muhammad himself, the founder of Islam, claimed to be a direct descendant of Ishmael.  I’ll go into Islam in more detail in a later post.  Next time, I’m going to focus on the descendants of Isaac: Judaism and Christianity.

Until then, Be Well...

© James P. Rice 2011, 2016

Simply Me (continued)

Topic #1 - Philosophy (continued)

Chapter 2

“One man’s theology is another man’s belly laugh.” – Robert A. Heinlein

belief [bih-leef]   Noun:               1.  an opinion or conviction;
                                                             2.  confidence in the truth or existence of something 
                                                                   not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof;

                                                             3.  confidence; faith; trust;

                                                             4.  a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith;

faith [feyth]   Noun:                      1.  confidence or trust in a person or thing;

                                                             2.  belief that is not based on proof;

                                                             3.  belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of 

                                                                  religion;

                                                             4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of 

                                                                  merit, etc.;

religion [ri-lij-uh n]   Noun:      1.  a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and 
                                                                  purpose of the universe, especially when 
                                                                  considered as the creation of a superhuman 
                                                                  agency or agencies, usually involving devotional 
                                                                  and ritual observances, and often containing a 
                                                                  moral code governing the conduct of human 
                                                                  affairs;

                                                             2.  a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices 

                                                                   generally agreed upon by a number of persons or 

                                                                   sects;

                                                             3.    the body of persons adhering to a particular set of 

                                                                   beliefs and practices; 

spirituality [spir-i-choo-al-i-tee]  Noun:  

                                                              1.  the quality or fact of relating to, or consisting of 

                                                                   spirit; incorporeal;

                                                              2.  incorporeal or immaterial nature;

                                                              3.  predominantly spiritual character as shown in 

                                                                    thought, life, etc.; spiritual tendency or tone;

theology [thee-ol-uh-jee]   Noun:  

                                                              1.  The field of study and analysis concerned with 
                                                                   God and God’s attributes and relations to the 
                                                                   Universe; the study of divine things or religious 
                                                                   truth; divinity;

When most erudite citizens of a cosmopolitan society of the twenty-first century think of “Religion,” they, are usually considering five inter-woven concepts under that one capital “R”: belief, faith, religion, spirituality, and theology. 

Looking at the dictionary definitions at the beginning of this post, you can see that, while ‘belief’ and ‘faith’ are synonyms, they aren’t exactly the same.  It is possible for one to have belief without faith, but not faith without belief.  In other words, you can have a belief in something whether or not you’ve seen evidence of its veracity; while ‘faith’ is believing in something without any sort of evidence, just because something inside you says, “This I Believe.” 

‘Spirituality,’ on the other hand, can be addressed by either faith or belief, as it is concerned with the concept of the immaterial Spirit or Soul.  It has even been applied to situations where there is an absence of belief or faith, i.e. when atheists use either “The Spirit of Man” or “The Human Spirit” to define one or more of the intangibles of the Human mind, such as: the drive to overcome and survive insurmountable odds, the ability to use intuitive reasoning to come to an accurate conclusion from what appears to be insufficient data, and the ability of the subconscious to complete a puzzle from a few disparate pieces.  Then there is the spirituality aspect of ‘religion,’ with a little “r.”

Small “r” religion is the application and practice of the various systems of belief and faith, once they’ve been codified, chronicled, and consecrated.  It is the collected trappings in which we enshroud our intangible beliefs; the “garment of faith,’ as it was defined by Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  It can include something as large, old, and ritualized as the worship services of the Roman Catholic Church, or something as small, recent, and casual as the tradition a collegiate athletic team has of touching a specific item for luck before a game.  But, no matter the age, complexity, or size, many, if not all, religions have some sort of spiritual aspect or consideration, be it the one shot at Salvation of an Immortal Soul, the continued Reincarnation of a Soul in the Search for Enlightenment, or the temporary inhabitation of a ‘meat puppet’ by some Great Celestial Being.  There are, however, four hallmarks shared by all religions: that only certain beliefs and practices are sanctioned; that engaging in anything taboo results in the transgressor being chastened, often severely; that some, if not all, sanctioned practices are ceremonially engaged in at very specific places and times; and that all beliefs and practices, both prescribed and proscribed, are passed down to successive generations in such a way as to enshrine said beliefs and practices as necessary cultural habits, and ensure their accurate and faithful preservation and adherence. 

Finally, theology is a sub-category of Philosophy that is part Ethics and part Metaphysics.  It’s the study of the divinity and truth of religion in general, or of a specific religion.  As such, it can cover the belief and faith of the adherents of religion, any divinely required moral codes and their relationship to the spirit, how the tenets of religion correlate with Truth, how divinity figures into the creation and management of the Universe, and the nature and scope of divine revelation in a faith-based belief system.  As you can see, theology touches on all aspects of capital “R” Religion.

So, I imagine that, by now, if your eyes aren’t starting to glaze over, you’re asking yourself, “Where’s the conflict?  Where’s the heresy?  Where does he start a Jihad?”  Well, reach not for the new Bourne story (Spoiler Alert: David comes out of hiding and is forced to do violence on shadowy types in order to save someone close to him; the movie version will contain lots of car chases and shaky cameras.) nor grab the newest George R. R. Martin novel (Spoiler Alert: he kills off half of the main characters about three fifths of the way through the book.), because here’s where the discussion gets interesting.

Next time, we look at the God of Abraham.  Until then, Be Well...

© James P. Rice 2011, 2016