Archives for category: USA Constitution

This Blog “The Philosopher on Politics has been combined with “A New Paradigm in Christian Thinking”.  All new Posts will appear on http://gadflyblog.com/ effective 12/12/2016.

Thanks for your interest in these topics.

The Philosopher

Advertisements

The Gad Fly ver. 1.2.1

The Philosopher

https://thephilosopheronpolitics.wordpress.com/tag/gad-fly/

http://anewparadigminchristianthinking.wordpress.com/tag/gad-fly/

7/20/2016

Copyright 2016

Definition of Gad Fly

  • A fly that bites livestock, especially a horsefly, warble fly, or bot-fly.
  • An annoying person, especially one who provokes others into action by criticism.

The Gad Fly of the Greek Democracy[i]

  • Plato refers to Socrates as the “gad fly” of the state (as the gad fly stings the horse into action, so Socrates stung various Athenians).

The Gad Fly of the Christian Church[ii]

A New Paradigm in Christian Thinkingis the gad fly of the Christian Church.  Christian Churches do not accept criticism, ever. The price of criticism in the Christian Church is excommunication.  Christian sees themselves as “birds of a feather” and a critical bird is not of their nest.  They must protect the income and salaries of the professional Christians, the minds of their youth and the minds of all of their members from the gad flies of the Christian Church. Professional Christians must preach to the choir, instructing them on the religion that they have chosen to put their faith.  The cost of not preaching to the choir is that the choir will vote with their feet and donations, resulting in a loss of income to the church and the professional Christians who probably have children – if Protestant – that they need to get through college and a mortgage to pay off.   If the professional Christians are Catholic, they will not meet with the approval of the hierarchy of the church and will be excommunicated.

Max Planck, the German nuclear physicist of the early twentieth century, stated, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.[iii]

The same statement can be made of religion.  Acceptance of a new viewpoint of the existing data on religion can only take place when a younger generation becomes comfortable with these new views and those who are adamantly opposed to these new views die off.

Because of this self-protection of the minds of the youths, the church is destined to disappear for failure to keep up with our knowledge of the universe and the light it has shined on our knowledge and purpose of the visit to planet Earth of the Representative of the Creator of the Universe (RoCoU) two thousand years ago, and taught how the Homo sapiens who have evolved over the past thousands of centuries can get their basic needs of food, clothing and shelter met on this planet Earth and how to live in peace with each other and other nations.

An interesting side note is that Paleoanthropologist has found no link to the evolution of the Homo sapiens skull to that of the evolved Ancient Man, leaving open the creation of the Homo species by the “Creator of the Universe”.  Although ancient man and modern man have identical bone structure from the neck on down, their skulls and thus brains are much different, nor is there any evidence of a transitional development from the skull of Ancient Man to the skull (Brain) of the Homo Species. [iv]

The advances in our knowledge of the universe and the life creation process in the last one hundred years, mainly due to the Hubble Telescope and advances in life science, have put the Christian Church in a position where they need to update their theology from religious to pragmatic (cause and effect, science) or face extinction.  The church is clearly in a positon of “grow or die” and the church cannot possibly grow with the determination to maintain their existing course, a course established and handed down through the generations and centuries by people that did not understand the meaning, instructions from the RoCoU and implications of the events that had taken place in the very beginning of “The Way” or the Christian Church.  These events took place in a very religious society and that society, for the most part, saw and recorded these events through a religious lens (perspective).

Case Study I

The RoCoU that visited planet Earth two thousand years ago taught the audience that had gathered around Him how to get along with other people on a one-on-one basis and how nations could live in peace with one another on a nation-to-nation basis.[v]

  • For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” [vi] From the accepted Christian perspective, their judgments will be judged by a higher power at the end of the life of planet Earth. They do not see their judging others as something that has immediate consequences.  From the pragmatic perspective, the effect of judging others – be it one-on-one or nation-to-nation – will have immediate consequences.  All Homo sapiens on planet Earth are of equal authority; one does not have dominion over another. And as one Homo sapien judges another, so in turn are they judged by those they are judging in real time by the same measure they are using to judge!This holds true for one nation to judge another nation. As one nation judges another, so is that nation judged, by the measure they use to judge, by the nation they are judging.  As in the case where the USA is judging ISIS with “air strikes,” the USA is being judged by ISIS attacking soft target (civilian targets, airplanes, restaurants, public places, etc.) with bombing and assault weapons.  The USA has judged ISIS as “barbaric” and ISIS, in turn, has judged the USA as “barbaric”.  This ISIS War has made it impossible to tell the Barbarians from the Barbarians.

Wars of our past have been mislabeled.  We must remember that the President of the USA is also the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the USA.  The orders given by the President must be followed by the USA military forces.  The President does not issue illegal orders.  If the President  orders it, it is a legal order and must be obeyed by those in subornation to the Commander-in-Chief.  One can argue that they do not have to follow an illegal order, but they will probably be sent to the brig while the Supreme Court reviews their case. They will be removed from and replaced from duty and someone else will carry out the Commander-in-Chief’s order.

Therefore the Civil War as we know it was not our civil war – it was  Lincoln’s War.  The USA involvement in WWII was FDR’s and Truman’s War.  Harry Truman was President when the Korean War began in 1950, and Dwight Eisenhower was elected in 1952 and was President when the armistice was signed in 1953.  The Vietnam War was JFK’s initiative and LBJ’s Bombing War; Nixon pulled USA troops out of Vietnam. The Serbia vs. Bosnia, Kosovo, NATO was Clinton’s war.  The Persian Gulf War I with Iraq was G.H.W. Bush’s War.  The Iraq War was G.W. Bush’s War and the ISIS-ISIL War is Obama’s War.

As a professional troubleshooter for over forty years, I can equivalently state that, “A problem must be accurately described before action is taken to try and solve the problem; if not, a bigger problem will be the result.”  By placing the proper labels on our past wars, we should gain some insight as to the right problem to solve.

The Right Problem to Solve

  • Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison.” [vii]

The term “workable compromise” was not coined until the twentieth century. Is it any wonder that our ancestors did not understand the meaning of the above instruction from the RoCoU during his visit to planet Earth two thousand years ago?  A workable Compromise is a solution to conflicts that work for all participants in the disagreement.  The first step in search of a workable compromise is to ask the conflicting subject, “What do you want?”  If one does not understand what the conflicting parties want, how can a resolution ever be found that works for the principle parties?

  • Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won’t he first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace.[viii]

Here we have the workable compromise on a much larger scale.  In the case of USA vs. ISIS, the question was never asked, “What do you want?”  If we trace back the steps of the previous administrations, we should be able to predict what ISIS-ISIL wants.  The Sunni Muslims were in power in Iraq prior to G.W. Bush’s administration.  G.W. Bush’s War left the Sunni dispossessed from their homeland by the puppet Shiite Muslim administration installed by Bush. Iraq’s neighbor, Syria, was involved in its own civil war; The Sunni Muslims, now still armed with their weapons from the now defunct Iraq Red Army, seized the opportunity and developed their base of operation in Syria.  This new ISIL then made pronouncement on video, in a very barbaric way, for the USA to “Stay out of our fight.”  The Obama administration judged ISIL as “terrorists” and initiated air strikes against ISIS-ISIL as they threatened our allies in power in Iraq.

As described above in Case Study I, judging a nation as terrorist will result in the judging nation to be judged as terrorist by the judged nation.   As the USA conducted air strikes against “hard targets” (military targets) in an attempt to minimize collateral damage (civilian deaths), ISIS-ISIL, in retaliation, began bombing and assaulting soft targets (Civilian Targets).

Judging and the lack of ability to negotiate a workable compromise by the Obama administration has, and will continue to, cost the western civilization much cost in damage, dislocation of refugees and lives of civilians.  It is apparent that even a routine change in the administration by a newly elected administration will not end this conflict with ISIS-ISIL. A resignation or impeachment of the Chief Executive seems the proper road to pursue.  A newly elected administration would be in a position of trying to apologize for the actions of the previous administrations, and that never happens.

The Lens Used for the Viewing of the Facts

The lens one views the facts, events or evidence through determines the conclusions that the viewer will hold as the correct interpretation of the facts, events or evidence. The classic scenario is this: Two men who are walking in the woods come upon an immaculate garden, complete with trimmed hedges, flower garden arrangements, etc.   One man states, “There must be a caretaker for this place.” The other man states, “What a wonderful work of nature.”   The events that took place during the visit of the RoCoU two thousand years ago can be looked at through a religious lens or a pragmatic lens.

There are two and maybe three writers that were able to record the events, of the visit to Earth by the RoCoU and the events that took place, without looking though there religious lens.  Mark, who wrote the book of Mark in the Book of Books, the Bible, was a young man on the perimeter of the core group who became the Apostles of the RoCoU. He found himself in Rome where much persecution was taking place of the “Christians” in Rome.  He took it upon himself to record for the purpose of history the events that had taken place during his life.  He was an eyewitness to some of the events and received reports from those who were part of the core group of the RoCoU.  The style of writing for an historian is to answer the questions, “who, what, where and when.”   Luke, who wrote the books of Luke (Luke I) and Acts of the Apostles (Luke II), was contracted to record the events that had and were taking place in this time period. [ix]  Luke wrote under the guidelines of a journalist, answering “who, what, where and when.”  Luke was an eyewitness to many of the events that took place, he interviewed others who were eyewitnesses of events and he was an embedded journalist with the Apostle Paul on his missionary journeys.  Matthew was a tax collector and a Jew who made an argument to Jews of the authentication of the RoCoU to the Jewish religion.  He sometimes included the “why” in his writings, as did John in the book of John.  This would make their writing styles, “who, what, where, when and why” a little more difficult to sort out the facts from their interpretation of the facts and events that took place during this visit of the RoCoU.  The Apostle Paul was highly educated in Jewish religion and history.  He viewed our relationship with the RoCoU through the lens of Jewish religion and history.  A close examination of the writing of Paul will disclose that his view of the RoCoU’s visit to planet Earth was religious and the RoCoU’s view of his visit to earth was pragmatic and the next step in the evolution of the Homo species on planet Earth.

 The Gad Fly of the Democracy of the USA

The present day gad fly of democracy in the USA is The Top Gun National Crises Troubleshooter, Retired.[x]  The Greeks invented democracy from scratch and it worked well for them for about 170 years.  The Greeks were on the peak of their Golden Age when they got tired of hearing their gad fly, Socrates, who was a critic of their society, in particular of the shortcomings and corruption in this democracy.  Socrates was one of the founders of western philosophy.  The Greek Senate charged Socrates with “corrupting the minds of the youth,” and they sentenced Socrates to death.  The death of Socrates was the beginning of the downfall of Greece, for they had lost their “guidepost.”

The Top Gun National Crises Troubleshooter, like Socrates has been excommunicated from his position at a national laboratory by management that took offense to his proposals that threated their power structure.  His teaching credentials were canceled in a local church for “corrupting the minds of the youth” and not teaching the church’s official view on the subject. He was excommunicated from a church where he was a member in good standing for twenty years for publishing “A New Paradigm in Christian Thinking” [xi] and corrupting the minds of their youth and any other person in their church with science and philosophy.  Thank God for civil laws that protects our citizens from physical harm.

Our President has not chosen to listen to this gad fly, when he suggested that a workable compromise be initiated to resolve the conflict of space, control and authority in Iraq between the three different sects of Muslims. This was proposed by the Vice President, and now the reining authority in Syria has been added to the mix; he chose to put together a coalition of nations to wipe ISIS-ISIL from planet Earth.  ISIS-ISIL has retaliated with attacks against this coalition of nations and the USA hitting soft targets.  We should expect this activity to continue. The best outcome, using the best military forces on the planet,  for a military victory, will be guerilla warfare with the soft targets continuing to be hit by these guerilla fighters.  The only solution to the ISIS-ISIL conflict is a workable compromise – a permanent home for the displaced Sunni Muslims from their Iraq home.

Lessons from History

In 480 B.C. the Persians were set upon wiping the Greeks off the Earth or enslaving them.  The Persians greatly outnumbered the Greeks.  The Persians were under autocratic the rule of Xerxes; the Greeks were under democratic rule (one for all and all for one).   The Persians overran the Greek Spartans (trained warriors) at the pass of Thermopylae [xii] and sacked Athens, which had been evacuated by the Greeks.

The Persians had large war ships (similar to that of the USA navy, bigger than their opponents).  The Greeks built small maneuverable war ships with a torpedo like Ram on the bow of the ship (A trireme).  The Greeks lured the Persian navy in to the Aegean Sea where there were many islands presenting a maneuverable issue for the Persians.  With their mobility (like ISIS-ISIL), the Greeks ran circles around the larger Persian ships and rammed the Persian ships with their torpedo like Rams at the front of their ships and sank the Persian Fleet. [xiii]

Beware USA your large arsenal of weapons is being out maneuvered by an adversary who is focused on mobility.

The USA Transition from a Republic to a Democracy

The USA was formed as a republic and has been in a long transition to a democracy in small steps. This change has come about by allowing more of the population to vote in elections and it changed the way our President was elected.  In the beginning, only land owners could vote in the elections.  These were the people who had an invested interest in the profitability of the nation, much like that of stockholders voting in a corporation. [xiv]  The vote has slowly been extended, for various reasons, to other segments of our society who do not have an investment or knowledge of producing a profitable nation (women, teens, those on government assistance).  We certainly have improved on the lifestyles of our citizens, as have the Greeks, but our national debt is rising above our ability to pay the interest, which could eventually result in foreclosure on our property (nation) by our creditors (like the two bailouts of the Greeks by the EU in recent history).

The Life Span of a Democracy

The average lifespan for a democracy is about 170 years, as established by the Greeks.  In the Greek democracy, leaders were chosen by a lottery, thus minimizing payoffs and corruption in the government.  Serving as a leader was considered a duty of citizenship.  Ballots could be cast to remove a government leader from office and they would be exiled for ten years from their society. In the Greek democracy, only about 20 percent of the population could vote. [xv]   The Greeks now have more people on the government payroll than people paying taxes to support the government. Is this direction the USA wants to continue to pursue?

The Code of Conduct to Live Long in this Land

There is a “code of conduct” that was intended to provide for the continued success of a nation living long in the land that had been giving to them.  Unfortunately, these were given to a very religious people and they did not understand the economic implications of these Ten Codes of Conduct.  Unfortunately, these Ten Codes of Conduct are still seen as religious by almost our entire society, religious and secular alike.  When one sets aside their religious lens, the pragmatic lens shows that the economics of these Ten Codes of Conduct can be realized.  The original Codes of Conduct were given in an ancient language; therefore, the proper perspective is to look at them through the eyes of a parent giving instruction to their children so that they might live long in the land the parent was giving them to raise their generations.

  1. You will not listen to anyone but your father for guidance.
  2. You will not form addictions that will prevent you from making your own decisions.
  3. You will not use my name as an authority to cause trouble or discomfort for any other person on this planet Earth.
  4. You will take a day off, after every six days of work, and remember who gave you this land and enjoy your time with family and friends, and you will allow your employees time off to enjoy their family and friends, and you will not mow your lawn on this day and interrupt the peace of your neighbors.
  5. Remember what your mother and father taught you, and hand down those teaching to your children and grandchildren, that you might live long in this land I have given you.
  6. You shall not murder.
  7. You shall not steal.
  8. You shall not give false witness against your neighbor.
  9. You shall not seek an intimate relationship with your neighbor’s wife.
  10. You shall not scheme to gain possession of your neighbor’s property.
  11. You will not build a big mansion type house in your neighbor’s back yard.
  12. You shall keep the walk-ways, of your communities, free of “F oxtails” that injure our pets. [xvi]

QED

 

 

[i] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates

[ii] http://anewparadigminchristianthinking.wordpress.com/

[iii] Max Plank, http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/max_planck.html/

[iv] NOVA: Dawn of Humanity DVD, http://www.shoppbs.org/home/index.jsp/

[v] Jesus on judging, negotiating

[vi] Matthew 7:2, The Bible

[vii] Matthew 5:25, The Bible

[viii] Luke 14:31-32, The Bible

[ix] Luke 1:1-4, The Bible

[x] http://thephilosopheronpolitics.worpress.com/

[xi] http://anewparadigminchristianthinking.wordpress.com/

[xii] http://www.ancient.eu/thermopylae/

[xiii] National Geographic The Greeks DVD, 2016, http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/weaponswar/p/blpwtherm.htm/

[xiv] https://thephilosopheronpolitics.wordpress.com/tag/voting/  TBC

[xv] PBS, “The Greeks”, 2016

[xvi] http://pets.webmd.com/dogs/foxtail-grass-and-your-dog/

                            The Path to World Peace Ver. 1.1.4

The Philosopher

http://anewparadigminchristianthinking.wordpress.com/tag/World-Peace/

https://thephilosopheronpolitics.wordpress.com/tag/World-Peace/

Revised 3/21/2016

Copyright 2016

Introduction

There are many factors that cause conflict in the world, but one of the largest divides between people on a microscopic social scale and between nations on a macroscopic social scale is religion.  Religion can be divided into two parts: faith and tradition. The difference between faith and tradition is that faith does not need to be defended, protected, preserved or expanded, while Tradition must be defended, protected, preserved and expanded.  The promotion of tradition can be by peaceable means or by aggressive armed conflict.  Faith is something that can be shared with others but only by the personal testimony and by example of/by the faithful.

The Visit by the Representative of the Creator of the Universe (RoCoU)

Planet Earth received a visit by the Representative of the Creator of the Universe (RoCoU, a.k.a. Jesus) in the Common Era (C.E.) (in common terms) or the Era after the Birth of our Lord Jesus (in religious terms). The RoCoU came to planet Earth in the most advantageous time and place.  He came when the Homo sapiens had developed to an agrarian society, making the transition from “hunters and gatherers” due to a warming climate moving from an Ice Age.[i]  The Romans had conquered much of the known world and had built roads that made communications from community to community possible.  The RoCoU arrived into a culture that was a monotheist society, making known the Creator of the Universe more possible versus a society that was multi-theist, as was most of the known world at this time.

The purpose of the visit by the RoCoU is best described in the book of Luke in the Book of Books, the Bible.  Luke was writing as a journalist reporting to excellent Theophilus, a person or a group of persons. [ii] He not only interviewed eyewitnesses of the events that took place during this visit of the RoCoU, but was an eyewitness himself in his travels with Paul on his missionary journeys as reported in the Book of Acts, a.k.a. Luke II.  More insights can be obtained in the Book of Mark, as Mark was writing as a historian and in haste, so he was direct and did not offer any interpretation of the events. He just recorded the events for history.  From the accounts of Luke, we see that the RoCoU was on planet Earth to teach the Homo sapiens how to live life successfully on this planet and that Homo sapiens’ existence on this planet Earth will be finite, as planet Earth’s existence will be finite.

The Resurrection Problem

The Resurrection of the RoCoU, a.k.a. Jesus, has been interpreted through history as a religious event. He died for our sins, was resurrected from the dead as a forecast of our own resurrection, and He ascended into Heaven as a forecast of our own ascension into Heaven. [iii]  It is important to note that Paul the Apostle was a Jew’s Jew, an Israelite’s Israelite and an expert in Jewish Law.  He was chosen to represent the RoCoU (Jesus) to the Jews and the Gentiles (non-Jews) because he was persecuting the followers of the RoCoU by Jesus Himself in a very dramatic way, and he had the leadership personality and skills to accomplish the mission of establishing the “Living Church” of the RoCoU and to accomplish the mission of the RoCoU on planet Earth. [iv]  Paul, therefore, was humbled by the RoCoU and he put the focus of the Gospel message on the RoCoU himself and tied this event to the Jewish religious teachings of the time.

The RoCoU, however, put the focus of his message as being totally independent from – not tied to or a progression of – the Jewish religion.  “He told them this parable: ‘No one tears a piece out of a new garment to patch an old one. Otherwise, they will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined.  No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for they say, ‘The old is better.’’” This is clearly a teaching of a “Paradigm Shift” which is a term that was not coined until the seventeenth century by the Philosopher Immanuel Kant and Thomas Kuhn in 1962. This term was first applied to the paradigm shift of the mathematics of the Greeks and to Newtonian Physics, and was later applied to social science by H.L Handa and to the paradigm shift of Christianity by Hans Kuhn. [v]

In general, a Paradigm Shift is a new way of thinking or a new way of understanding or acting.  The New Paradigm is totally independent from – not tied to or a progression of – the existing Paradigm. Therefore, the message brought to planet Earth by the RoCoU was indeed a Paradigm Shift from the Jewish Religion, which was the religion of the Homos sapiens where the RoCoU made His appearance on planet Earth.

The Return of the RoCoU to His Home Base

The RoCoU came to planet Earth in the form of the existing Homo sapiens on planet Earth by the immaculate conception of Mary, His surrogate mother.  He was raised in the Jewish society to which he was born and had complete knowledge of this Jewish religion and tradition.  To return back to His home base somewhere in the universe, He needed a change in form that would allow him to make that transition.  If He were to be interned on this planet as a corpse, he would not be able to return to His home base and go onto His next assignment, another planet, like the planet Earth in the “Goldilocks Zone,” to advance the life that has evolved on that planet as it did on planet Earth.  Therefore, the death, resurrection and the ascension of the RoCoU was necessary for him to continue His work in the universe created by the Creator of the universe – His Father.

The Science behind the Visit of the RoCoU

Astrologers have determined that there are approximately four billion other planets like Earth in the universe.  These plants are in the “Goldilocks Zone,” which means they are not too hot, not too cold, and are not too large and not too small. And given the possibility that water exists on these planets, which along with amino acid [vi] are the two requirements to produce life on these planets, all the other elements to create life are readily available in the universe (a.k.a. “star dust”). The conclusions that can be drawn from this data are that the RoCoU may have a lot of planets like planet Earth to visit.  That makes planet Earth a very small number amongst all of its peers.  Therefore, planet Earth is not just a singular miracle as it has been reported in the past.  Astro physicists estimate that the sun has about four billion years of fuel left to burn, and then it will extinguish and life and the planet Earth will cease to exist in this solar system.  The RoCoU stated the end time would come like a “Bolt of Lightning.” [vii]

Negotiating a Workable Compromise is Key to World Peace

The RoCoU stated that negotiating a “workable compromise” was one of the most import things to do to be reconciled with an adversary.[viii] Only children, or children who are widely separated in age or distance from their siblings (functional only children), have the disadvantage of having grown up in their family of origin without near-in-age siblings and not gaining the natural ability to negotiate a workable compromise.  These special children, who are becoming more numerous in our and other nation’s societies, have also shown themselves to be world leaders.  There have been five Presidents of the USA, including our present President in this first quarter of the twenty-first century, as well as the leader of Russia, who have not developed the natural skill of negotiating a workable compromise. Who knows how many other world leaders did not have an opportunity to develop the natural skill of negotiating a ‘Workable Compromise’? Their communication style incudes statements like, “I want this” and “I want that,” and they usually got what they wanted in their family of origin and this communication style carried over into adulthood.[ix]  Being the oldest sibling with a near-in-age same sex sibling also tends to show an aggressive communication style and does not demonstrate they learned how to negotiate a workable compromise in their family of origin.  Learning to negotiate a workable compromise, once majority has been obtained, often comes only with intervention and intensive training.

The Effect of Divorce on World Peace

Looking at world peace on a microscopic scale leads to exploring the changing families of origin.  Sociologists have presented three perspectives on the cause of the increasing divorce rate in the USA and Western Europe, as only Japan has been able to minimize divorce and hold families together under the same roof.  The three perspectives are:  Symbolism, Functionalism and Conflict Theory. Taking Religion into account, a fourth perspective would be the effects of religion on the rate of divorce.  All of these four perspectives must be taking as parts of the whole, since each perspective only gives a partial view of the changing societies of the world.

Symbolism Interaction

Symbolism interaction is a microsociological examination on small-scale patterns of social interaction.  Its focus is face-to-face interactions and how people use symbols to create social life.  Industrialization and urbanization change marital roles and lead to a redefinition of love, marriage, children and divorce. The increasing divorce rate is explained in terms of changing symbols (or meanings) associated with both marriage and divorce.  Changes in people’s ideas—about divorce, marital satisfaction, love, the nature of children and parenting and the roles of husband and wife—have put extreme pressure on today’s married couples.  No single change is the cause, but taken together, these changes provide a strong ‘push’ toward divorce. ” [x]

Functional Analysis

 “The central idea of functional analysis is that society is a whole unit made up of interrelated parts that work together.  Society is viewed as a kind of living organism.  Just as a biological organism has organs that function together, so does society like an organism. If society is to function smoothly, its various parts must work together in harmony.  The group is a functioning whole, with each part related to the whole.  Whenever we examine a smaller part, we need to look for its functions and dysfunctions to see how it is related to the larger unity.

The family has lost many of its traditional functions, while others are presently under assault.  Especially significant is that economic production is no longer a cooperative, home-based effort, with husbands and wives depending on one another for their interlocking contributions to a mutual endeavor.  Husbands and wives today earn individual paychecks, and increasingly function as separate components of an impersonal, multinational, and even global system.  When outside agencies take over family function, this makes the family more fragile and an increase in divorce inevitable.  The fewer functions that family members have in common, the fewer their ‘ties that bind,’ and these ties are what help see husbands and wives through the inevitable problems they experience.” [xi] 

An early and similar living organism view of society was applied to the Christian Church by the Apostle Paul. “Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.” [xii]


 

Conflict Theory 

Applying conflict theory to explain why the U.S. divorce rate is high, conflict theorist look at men’s and women’s relationship in terms of basic inequalities—men dominate and exploit, while women are dominated and exploited.  They also point out that marriage reflects the basic male-female relationship of society and is one of the means by which men maintain their domination and exploitation of women.

Conflict theorists see marriage as reflecting society’s basic inequalities between males and females.  Higher divorce rates result from changed male-female power relationships, especially as wives attempt to resolve basic inequalities and husbands resist those efforts.  From the conflict perspective, then, the increase in divorce is not a sign that marriage has weakened but, rather, a sign that women are making headway in their historical struggle with men.” [xiii]

Religion and the Rise in Divorce Rate

Following the lines of conflict theory with women gaining power in the U. S., religion is playing an important function with the diversity of religions in the U.S.  In western nations, the percentage rate of births to unmarried mothers (UMM) is increasing (from greatest to least of UMM rates is: Sweden, Denmark, France, United States, Great Britain, Canada and Germany).  Only the monotheist nations Italy and Japan have low UMM rates. [xiv]  Women have been gaining power; states have accommodated this change in the power structure of marriage with community property laws, no-fault divorce, and amicable attorney guided divorce.

A Lesson from History

“King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh’s daughter—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites.  They were from nations about which the Lord had told the Israelites, ‘You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.’ Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray.” [xv] Historically this number of wives may have become inflated due to the verbal nature of passing down historical information in this time period, as there was not a great many people living in this area in this time period.

Effects of Men Marrying Wives of a Different Religion

There are several instances in which men find themselves married to a woman whose religious beliefs become objectionable.  This usually happens when the husband or mate attains the age of thirty-five to thirty-nine.[xvi]  At this age a maturation process begins [xvii] and the religious teaching of their youth (often from their mother) kicks in and they make a major life changing decision to follow the religion of their youth, which is now in conflict with the religion of their mate.  But as seen in Solomon’s case, these women do not change their religion, at least not easily.  Women are governed under different rules of life than men. They do not seem to go through this mid-life transformation; they have their own bodily changes at about the age of fifty.

In this changing of religions situation, mothers often take the position that they must protect their children form the heretical teaching of the new religion of their mate.  In community property states and no-fault divorce states, this can lead to some dicey situations and long discussions in courts, about the future of the children, and may result in court orders in regard to child custody.  Our courts do not seem to have the wisdom given to Solomon [xviii] when it comes to establishing what is best for the family, but they usually follow the letter of the law which does not put much substance in negotiating a workable compromise.

The Path to World Peace

What then is the “Path to World Peace?”  The Path to World Peace has two roads to follow.  Route one is to come to terms with the visit of the RoCoU to planet Earth twenty plus centuries ago and come to grips with the notion that He did not come to Planet Earth to set Himself up as a person or deity to be worshiped, but rather He came to instruct us how to live successfully on this planet Earth. [xix] This, in effect, was part of the evolutionary process of the Homo sapiens species.

The RoCoU taught that the teachings he was bringing to us was not tied to, in conjunction with, or a progression of anything that had preceded His visit.  “One does not put new wine into an old wineskin. The new wine is too volatile and will burst the old wineskin and he will lose both the new wine and the old wineskin.  New wine must be put into new wineskins.[xx]

Regarding The Path to World Peace, the RoCoU taught two parables that He hoped would be understood by his disciples and handed down through the generations.  Unfortunately His disciples were not at the development stage that they could understand these parables. They themselves were caught up in a religious society and could not separate their thinking in religious terms from that of scientific terms.  Parable 1, (One-on-One Peace): “As you are going with your adversary to the magistrate, try hard to be reconciled on the way, or your adversary may drag you off to the judge, and the judge turn you over to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison.” [xxi] Parable 2, (Nation-to-Nation Peace): “Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won’t he first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.” [xxii]

The Path to World Peace: Negotiate a Workable Compromise with your personal adversaries and with other nations that have a different view of the world than your own nation.  Accept the overwhelming evidence that planet Earth is but one of a billion or so other planets like Earth and the RoCoU paid us a visit in a special place that was most advantageous for Him to get His message to the world’s inhabitants.  The RoCoU’s message was to teach us how to live on this planet Earth peacefully with other people and other nations, and these teachings were based on science not religion.  “People who are unable to understand perfectly both the Bible and the science far outnumber those who do understand them.” – Galileo (1564-1642).

There is one caveat to negotiating a workable compromise.  Most of us grew up in our family of origin with another sibling(s) somewhat close to our own age (within five years).  We learned naturally how to negotiate a workable compromise and how to share with another sibling.  Only children and those with distant siblings (greater than five years) did not receive this natural training to share and negotiate a workable compromise.  As a result, they got most of everything they wanted without outcries from their siblings, resulting in a communication style of “I want this” and “I want that,” and they usually got what they wanted.  They never outgrew this early training.

Food For Thought

Our greatest economic competitor, China, has a one-hundred percent national population of people age about thirty-five and younger, in this first quarter of the twenty-first century, that are only children and are coming into power positions in their country. This could prove challenging for leaders of the world’s nations to deal with since they would have little training in how to negotiate a workable compromise and would be accustomed to getting everything they want.  If the USA continues to elect only children as their President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, this could be devastating to the USA, as neither nation would have leaders with the natural training to share and negotiate a ‘Workable Compromise’.

QED

 

[i] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_society

[ii] Luke 1:1-4, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_1

[iii]I Corinthians 15,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus

[iv] Acts 9, https://www.bible.com/bible/111/act.9.niv#!

[v] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift

[vi] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid

[vii] Luke 17:22-24, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+17:22-24&version=NIV/

[viii] Luke 12:58-59, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+12%3A58-59&version=NIV/,

Luke 14:31-32, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+14%3A31-33&version=NIV/

[ix] https://thephilosopheronpolitics.wordpress.com/tag/adlerian-psy/

[x] James M. Henslin, Sociology “a Down-to-Earth Approach 5th ed. Allyn and Bacon, 2001 pp24-26

[xi] Ibid pp27-30

[xii] The Apostle Paul, Romans 12:4-5, The Book of Books, (The Bible), NIV

[xiii] Ibid vi pp 30-31

[xiv] Ibid vi p26-28

[xv] I Kings 11:1-3, The Book of Books (The Bible)

[xvi] C. G. Jung and personal observations

[xvii] The President of the USA must be Thirty-Five years old, USA Constitution

[xviii] 1 Kings 3: 16-28, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Solomon

[xix] Book of Luke, The Book of Books (The Bible)

[xx] Luke 5:36-39, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+5:36-39&version=NIV

[xxi] Luke 12:58, http://biblehub.com/luke/12-58.htm

[xxii] Luke 14: 31-33, http://biblehub.com/niv/luke/14.htm

Boycott the Upcoming Presidential Election?  Ver. 1.0.3

The Top Gun National Crises Troubleshooter, Retired

https://thephilosopheronpolitics.wordpress.com/tag/boycott/

(Rev.) 2/2/2016

Copyright 2016

We have a Presidential election coming up in November of 2016.  In that election, we will be asked to vote for a Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the USA, which is the most powerful military force on the planet.  Congress is forcing us to vote for this new Commander in Chief because it has not acted to reassign the duties of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the USA to a standing committee of ”White Haired Gentlemen” acting on consensus.   I state “White Haired Gentlemen” because white hair has been recognized for centuries as a sign of wisdom.  In fact, politicians, lawyers and judges of old used to wear white wigs to look like they had wisdom. Men of Wisdom are “Men who can foresee the consequences of their actions” and are what we need as our Commanders in Chief of the Armed Forces of the USA.

If Congress will not act, (and my Congressman refuses to introduce a bill creating a standing committee of “White Haired Gentlemen” (over sixty) to serve as Commanders in Chief of the Armed Forces of the USA) I will vote for whatever gentleman is on the ballot and has white hair!  If there is not a gentleman on the ballot for President (Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the USA), I will write in the name of my dog Buddy for President, and I would encourage all citizens who are sick and tired and FED -UP with the USA military being commanded by an amateur politician to do the same.  You can use your own dog’s name or my dog’s name; just let Congress know we are not fooling around and demand action to separate the President’s duties and the duties of the Commander in Chief!

 

We got Trouble, Trouble, Trouble, Right here in the USA, It starts with ‘W’ and that Stands for Women? Ver. 1.0.1

    The Top Gun National Crises Troubleshooter, Retired

https://thephilosopheronpolitics.wordpress.com/tag/women

    8/9/2015

The First Presidential Debate:

    We just had our first real Presidential debate. I believe there were 10 men on the stage each with their own podium. The debate moderator was a female news reporter from a major news outlet. The front runner in the polls was center stage and the only non-politician on the stage. I did not watch the debate as I’m sure many Americans did not watch the debate. If the debate was about candidates voicing their opinions on the important issues that our country faces, then unless one actively watched the debate, we know nothing about the views of the candidates on any issue, as the news media insisted on making how we speak and regard women as the principle issue in this Presidential campaign.

      From the news reports, apparently the female debate moderator posed a question to the front runner, the non-politician who is a little rough around the edges, something like President Harry Truman or President Theodore Roosevelt. She was evidently taking questions from the general population and putting them before the candidates. The question she posed to the front runner was about remarks he in the past had made about women, such as about their weight, their looks, and probably their intelligence. This Debate Moderator obviously never heard her mother teach her that “People who live in class houses should not throw rocks”. The front runner was greatly taken back by this question that had absolutely nothing to do with national issues and took the question as an ad hominem question designed to disqualify him for the office of President based on his attitude towards women. The front runner responded to this female debate moderator with some ad hominem statements of his own, designed to prove her incompetence of being an impartial debate moderator. The front runner is now being accused of bringing earthy and inappropriate language into a Presidential debate. I believe one of the derogatory comments the front runner was accused of making to women is that they were FAT.

    Fat is a Good Thing:

We have had, thanks to advances in agricultural technology, a feast environment in which to live. The media has portrayed women as slender – with the exception of “Mike and Molly” – and as runway models and even slender model television news reporters. All this hype has led us Americans to think that women should all be like these role models the media has displayed.

    The population of Homo sapiens is increasing on this planet and agricultural land is decreasing to accommodate the increased population and, of course, keep our unemployment down and our economy up with this new construction. It should not take a seer to see a famine coming. Women are created to hold more fat than men. Men were created to have more muscle than women. When times of famines were a natural part of life, women were better suited to survive
    the famine than men because they had stored up more fat than the men. A 20th century example was the German siege on Stalingrad. It was the women who survived this siege because of their fat content. Therefore calling a woman FAT is to give her a compliment; she is getting ready for the next famine and these runway models and model news reporters will be the first to succumb to the famine.

Bad Language not fit for President:

    Other candidates have now argued that the front runner’s language skills are inappropriate for the office of President and that he has offended 53% of the voting citizens and their party could never win the election against the other party’s front runner, who is also a female.

      Much Discussion Ahead:

    These events of recent activity have so many issues involved with them; it may not be possible to address them all in anything less than several volumes of written works. This writer will attempt, at least, to scratch the surface of the national issues involved in these discussions and charges.

Topics that Need Discussion:

     The role of women in national politics
     The voting rights of women in national politics
     An elitist society, that lends itself to promoting the educated and the educated from our elite colleges
     The dynamics of men and women serving together
     The focus of our nation on the equal rights of women in our society
     The basic difference of men and women
     The difference of how women vote for a President and how men vote for a President
     How men and women think, act and make decisions
     The priorities of men and women
     The functions of men and women in our nation
     The different styles of leadership of men and women
     The extreme: a matriarchal controlled nation

      The Role of Women in our Nation</ul>

      There are basic instincts involved with men and women. Men have a natural propensity to protect women. Historically, wars often took the lives of many men. Women are the only ones who have the ability to reproduce and replace the missing generation of men with newborn boys and raise them into manhood. Women are the future of our country; without women our country has no future. For this reason we protect our women and keep them out of harm’s way.

    A friend of mine recently brought forward information concerning Israel’s experience with women on the front lines of a combat situation during their six-day war in the mid-1960s. He said that many of the men were killed trying to protect the women on the front line of this war. In a small group discussion in a church, two of the male class leaders were adamant about protecting women and had judged the front runner of the debate as acting wrongly towards a woman.

      The front runner claims that if we focus on our attitudes towards women, we will never get anywhere in solving our real national problems. Most women and most men seem adamant that women need to be treated respectfully and certainly not be offended. This writer finds many uses for the statement made by Sam Houston, the Texas Ranger that defeated Santa Anna and gave us Texas. He said, “There is no honor in waging war against a woman.” This statement was no doubt directed to his wife who had filed for divorce, but seems to be applicable to many situations. If we, as a nation, put our focus on how we think, act and talk about women, our adversaries could well take advantage of this situation and overrun us or we could become so ineffective in solving our nation’s issues that we end up “Shooting ourselves in the foot.”

    If other candidates for the Chief Executive of our country think that we need to solicit the votes of the women in our nation, then in effect we are putting women in control of our government. This leads to two choices of focus. 1) We seek the women’s vote and address the issues that the women of our country want to address and ensure that they get the respect they deserve. 2) We address the issues that need to be addressed instead of trying to socially engineer our candidates for the Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces to the way that we think they should be groomed.

      A Parallel to Bad Language Inappropriate for President:

        There is an interesting parallel that this writer thinks should be presented to this situation of men’s manners and language skills. This parallel lies in the biography of Mr. John Newton. John Newton was the only son of a sea captain in Liverpool, England, which was a working class community. John was not treated very kindly by the other boys in his community. This was probably the result of a clash in the social order, noticeable to others because of John’s greater inheritance of innate knowledge from his sea captain father. John’s mother instilled in John the Gospel message until he was six years old, when she died of tuberculosis. John was exceptional in his ability to write fluently at the age of three, and memorized long text his mother gave to study. At the age of eight, he was sent off to boarding school. At age 10, he finished his formal education and went to sea with his sea captain father. By this time, John exhibited much behavior in being tough. He was mischievous, vulgar and blasphemous (degrading God), and in some countries, this is a crime punishable by death.

      Mr. Newton became involved in the slave trade, as was a common and accepted practice in this time period of history. He landed a position as first mate on a slave ship whose captain was a friend of John’s father. On their return to England, after delivering their slaves to the West Indies and America, in a route crossing the North Atlantic Ocean, the ship experienced a strong hurricane force storm that put the ship in danger of sinking. In an effort to save the ship and its crew, John Newton came to his knees and asked God for his grace. The situation changed and the ship limped to land for repairs with all the crew safe.

    Mr. Newton, with his attention turned back to the Gospel message that his mother had taught him, began a long self-study of God’s Grace. He landed a government position in the service of collecting duties from the incoming ships into Liverpool. This position afforded him and his wife a comfortable living in this working class community. John’s religious studies led him to interfacing with the new Methodist, Baptist and independent churches of England. The congregations of these churches were two social steps below his in-laws and his wife. The only church that would keep the peace in his family was the Church of England. Mr. Newton applied for ordination into the Church of England several times over about a five-year period, being rejected at every attempt. The Church of England was an elitist society and required its priests to have a degree from Cambridge or Oxford, and John’s formal education ended at the age of 10! John was self-taught in the study of God’s Grace. It was not until a wealthy landowner with political power in the Church of England, Lord Dartmouth, took an interest in Mr. Newton as a potential religious leader that John Newton was ordained into the Church of England and given a Parish in Olney, a working class community.

      John Newton’s reputation as one of the world’s great preachers flourished in his position of curate in this Olney working class Parish. He began writing hymns to supplement his sermons. For his sermon of January 1, 1773, celebrating a new year and a new beginning, he wrote the song that would become “Amazing Grace”. This was published by Mr. Newton in 1779 in a Hymnal the “Olney Hymns,” with the uninspiring title of “Faith’s Review and Expectations,” and it was #41 in the Olney Hymnal. He had collaborated on this hymnal with William Cowper, who became known as one of England’s great poets, and this song remained in obscurity for 60 years. The song that John had written for the 1773 New Year became known as “Amazing Grace.” England ignored this song; it first appeared in writing, at least the last two verses in Harriett Beecher Stowe’s book “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” in 1852. It ironically was being sung by the decedents of the slaves that John Newton had brought to America when he was a captain of a slave ship. It had been handed down by oral tradition and was first published in William Walker’s book “The Southern Harmony” in 1835. The last verse, which begins “When we’ve been there ten thousand years,” and had been around orally for half a century in Afro-American worship, was added after the first three verses by Edwin Othello Excell in 1910 in “Coronation Hymns,” and is the accepted 20th century form of “Amazing Grace”. Aretha Franklin took “Amazing Grace” from Gospel Music to popular music by recording it in 1947. It shifted into political consciousness of Black America when she teamed up with Martin Luther King in the 1960s and put “Amazing Grace” on its way to becoming our official National Spiritual Anthem. Judy Collins took “Amazing Grace” beyond the church walls in 1970 as the final track on “Whales and Nightingales.” Many recordings of “Amazing Grace” were recorded onward after 1970. The bagpipes of the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards created the use of “Amazing Grace” as a melancholy lament appropriate for sorrowful occasions, and its use at funerals grew widely as when Judy Collins sang it at the funeral of her son in 1992 and it was sung as part of the memorial mass for John F. Kennedy Jr. in 1999. “Amazing Grace” came to be used frequently at joyful church services, weddings, baptisms, celebrations of anniversaries, and on important public occasions ranging from the opening of baseball games to ceremonies of national mourning, such as the loss of the astronauts on the space shuttle Challenger in 1986, and the 3,000 deaths at Ground Zero in New York after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, and led by President Barrack Obama at the memorial service of those killed in a church who were attending a Bible Study group in 2015. In light of its recent history and usage, “Amazing Grace” has been called the Spiritual National Anthem of America. This is a description that can be applied even more widely on an international canvas, for the hymn soars above most boundaries as a simple celebration of the experience of grace. It is sung not only by Christians but by Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and people of no particular faith.

    John Newton was influential in the abolishment of slavery in Great Britain and died the same year that England abolished slavery in Great Britain.i

      Who do We want for President?

    What if we compare the life of John Newton, and all that he did for mankind, to the life of the front runner in these Presidential debates? Are we to stand firm and condemn his crude language as inappropriate for the office of President of the USA? Certainly John Newton’s vulgarity and blasphemous words are a greater sin than speaking harshly to a female, news media reporter and debate moderator who deserved what she got for bringing to the debate this sexist “red herring.” Has the USA, like the Church of England, become an elitist society, where one must have a degree from one our prestigious colleges like Harvard Law School to become President of the USA? Is this the result of soliciting the women’s vote? Do women chose their President on different criteria than men chose their President? Are men really from Mars and women from Venus? Germany had a democratic government and the women of Germany overwhelmingly supported Adolf Hitler, for he promised to give them what they wanted. He promoted himself as the savior of Germany and he won the hearts of the women of Germany. Is that who we want for a President – someone who will promise our women what they want to hear in order to solicit their vote and win the election? Or do we want a President that speaks frankly and out front of the issues this country needs to address and how to address these issues? Will the front runner offend certain voting blocs and risk losing the election because he did not promise these voting blocs what they wanted?

The Election System the Founding Fathers Wanted:

    Our Founding Fathers set up the President to be elected by the representative of the states. They did this to isolate the President from public opinion, which would allow our President to do what he thought was best for our country. Our President is no longer isolated from public opinion and therefore must promise the various voting blocs what they want in order to get elected. Once elected, the President can, for the most part, do what he thinks is best for the country, at least in his last and final term of office. If he needs to get reelected, then the President is still greatly subject to public opinion.

      The News Media in Control of our Government:

    The Founding Fathers had set up the election system to somewhat isolate Senators from public opinion, giving them six year terms and counting on the short memories of the voters so they could do what they thought was best for the country. The Founding Fathers gave Congressmen only a two-year term in office so that they would be sensitive to their constituents and represent public opinion. We now have an election system of government where the Chief Executive is subject and partially controlled by public opinion. And who is it that makes the public opinion known? Of course, it is the news media. Therefore, in effect, it is the news media that is in control of our government.

Was the news media upset with the front runner’s words to their representative as the debate moderator and did not the men of the news media come to her rescue and ban the front runner from participating in future debates? Yes, the men came to protect their female counterparts; this is the natural propensity of men to take care of the women.

    How does these actions Affect Voter Rights?

      The female debate moderator was lucky that she was not asking her sexist questions of me. How dare she bring sexism into a Presidential debate, this is a “Red Herring”. If this is a representative of the women in this country, we may have to revoke their right to vote so that we can address the really important issues this country faces and not these “Red Herrings” that a female debate moderator did not have the sense to hold back in the first place. She is lucky that I am not her boss. If I were her boss, I would have handed her a broom and a bowl cleaning brush and sent her to sweep the floors and clean the latrines.

    QED

      i Jonathan Aitken, “John Newton” “From Disgrace to Amazing Grace” Crossway, 2007

We Got Trouble, Trouble, Trouble, Right here in the USA, It Starts With “P” and that Stands for Paul Ver. 1.0.1

The Top Gun National Crises Troubleshooter, Retired

https://thephilosopheronpolitics.wordpress.com

10/15/2014

There is a popular scenario that explains how one event can have great consequences. This is often referred to as a Butterfly flapping it wings at the Equator and the wind movement from this action results in a Hurricane in the northern hemisphere. Another example is the nail that held the shoe on the horse that Paul Revere rode to warn of the approaching British by land and the Colonist were given time to prepare, organize and affront this assault beginning a process in which the USA was created. If the nail had come loose and fallen off, the shoe would have come loose also, the horse would pull up lame, Paul Revere would not have been able to warn the Colonist of the approaching British, the Colonist and the Revolution would have been crushed and the USA would not have been created. This story is all supposition, but the effect that the Apostle Paul hand on the creation of the USA is similar to these cause and effect relationships, he was the spark that ignited “Autonomy and Reflection” which led to “The Enlightenment” period (The Age of Reason) which led to the American and French revolutions.

Do we really know who set in motion the creation and formulation of the United States of America? Was it our first president, President Washington? Was it the writer of our “Declaration of Independence” from England, Thomas Jefferson, also our third president? Was it John Adams who delegated the writing of the Declaration of Independence to Thomas Jefferson and was our second president? Or was it Ben Franklin who with Adams and Jefferson edited and finalized our Declaration of Independence from England and convinced France to give the USA naval support?

Who formulated the concepts of “The Freedom and Rights of Man” that Thomas Jefferson integrated into our Declaration of Independence? Was it the “Enlightenment Philosophers”, those Philosophers after the late seventeenth century (René Descartes, Baron Henri d`Holbach, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire in France, John Locke, David Hume in Great Britain and Immanuel Kant of Germany) and formulated the concepts of “The Freedom and Rights of Man”?

Or was it the seventieth century French Philosophers, Voltaire, Diderot, and Rousseau Together they took on what they described as the forces of darkness—absolute monarchs, oppressive church establishments, irrational dogmas, thoughtless traditions, and all sorts of unexamined notions and customs embraced by ordinary people. They hoped to enlighten the general public by promoting independent thinking, scientific research, and improved systems of public education. Important philosophical impulses for this movement came from the writings of René Descartes and John Locke, thinkers of the 17th century

René Descartes, who is credited with formulating the process known as “Autonomy and Reflection” that was used by the “Enlightenment Philosophers” to come up with the concepts of “The Freedom of Man” that Thomas Jefferson integrated into our Declaration of Independence,? Or was it Paul, aka the Apostle Paul, aka Saint Paul aka Saul, who introduced the process of “Autonomy and Reflection” and recorded the process in his letter to the Galatians chapter 1:13-17. NIV “But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. Paul’s description of his experience with gaining knowledge about his mission assignment did not come from anyone else. He did not consult with anyone else. He did not search out any information from any source. He went to Arabia, by himself (Autonomy) and Reflected autonomously and received his vision for his mission. Paul did not label this process as “Autonomous Reflection” the French Philosopher of the seventeenth centuries, René Descartes who established it in his “Discourse on Method”. First, to accept nothing as true which I did not clearly recognize to be so. Second, was to divide up each of the difficulties which I examined into as many parts as possible, and as seemed requisite in order that it might be resolved in the best manner possible. Third was to carry on my reflections in due order, commencing with objects that were the most simple and easy to understand, in order to rise little by little, or by degrees to knowledge of the most complex, assuming an order, even if a fictitious one, among those which do not follow a natural sequence relatively to one another .

Therefore, I think we can contribute the creation of the United States of America to Paul, aka Apostle Paul, aka Saint Paul, aka Saul as he was also known because it seems he was at least the first person to record the “Autonomy and Reflection” process in detail. Socrates also practiced “Autonomy and Reflection”, as he most famously, went against the popular opinions of his day and, consequently, sacrificed his life for the “Laws” and principles he believed to be right . The Philosophical process of “Autonomy and Reflection” marked a new era in Philosophy and separates the “Modern Philosophers from the Ancient Philosophers who used the methodology of “Argument and Rebuttal” process to gain knowledge and the Modern Philosophers the “Autonomy and Reflection” process to gain knowledge.

There are other notable Philosophers that used the “Autonomy and Reflection” process to gain knowledge such as the British philosopher-scientist, Isaac Newton. In the eyes of his contemporaries and followers, he single-mindedly mastered the laws of the universe, while sitting (so the story goes” under an apple tree (Autonomy and Reflection). “Modern philosophy is defined as “Thinking for yourself”. If this “Autonomy and Reflection” process originated with the Apostle Paul we even owe credit to him for much of our present day technology.

Therefore, Paul is the Father of Modern Philosophy, the Father of our Technology and the Father of our Country. Let’s “Give credit where credit is due”!

http://faculty.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/Kant.htm
Robert C Solomon, Introduction to Philosophy 4ed., PP 18-19 , Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers, 1989
Ibid PP 15
Ibid PP 15

We got Trouble, Trouble, Trouble, Right here in the USA, it starts with “L” and that stands for “Labeling” Ver. 1.0.0
The Top Gun National Crises Troubleshooter, Retired
9/16/2014

Labeling a group of people to dehumanize them is the first step in justifying their demise from this earth. The Label of the day seems to be “Terrorist”. But a “Terrorist” is a group of people that covertly attack a country, military or civilians without warning and their movies are to bring down a government that has become a giant and is in control of the rest of the world. During WWII we called them “Special Ops” (Operation). Is this new movement “ISIS or ISIL” “Islamic State of this or that” a “Terrorist” organization or are they idealist invaders wanting to set up their own country for their own brand of religion. A motive the Americans should be familiar as the USA was formed to provide the Protestant Christians their own county free from the power of the existing paradigm in religion in Europe.

The USA still celebrates “Thanksgiving” a feast of our early settlers with the “Natives” who were living in this new country where the Americans wanted to establish their own brand of “Freedom of Religion”. These new settlers in this new nation were lucky there was not a strong world power that thought they were the controllers of the world or the USA would never have been born. The USA was lucky in that it did have strong foreign powers that supported them who could benefit from this new settlement in America.

Did the citizens of this new country, the USA, become “Terrorists” when they ran into opposition from the existing residents of this country? Or did they label the existing residents as “Savages” (non-Christians) and remove them from this planet. We should check with some of our “Native Americans” and see what their opinion might be if the new settlers were “Terrorist” or not. Maybe even check with survivors of some of the settlors better known massacres’ like “Wounded Knee” to see if the USA were “Terrorists”.

“Democracy is the worst from of government, except for all the rest”, Winston Churchill. An even worse form of government is a Democracy that has a “News Media” driving public opinion that drives our President with “Dictatorial Powers” over our military. Military action to mitigate what the “News Media” has determined is a crisis that needs the attention of the Military from this “Democratic Society”, “Nonviolent Society” the USA. Then our President, driven by “Public Opinion” created by the “News Media”, seeks the power given to our Congress to declare War on the people we have labeled “Terrorist” who maybe, are just invaders wanting to set up their own country for their own brand of religion.
This Philosopher is old enough to remember the beginning of the Vietnam War, where the USA was only sending in “Military Advisors” to South Vietnam a country with a crisis, a movement from North Vietnam to unite their country into one of their own brand of idealism. This philosopher was in a group in the South Pacific who had responsible for sending our “Fallen” back to the USA for their families to bury. The USA was in that war for over a decade and the number of “Fallen” that were sent back to the USA to be buried by their families was over 55,000. “If we cannot remember history, we will be bound to repeat it”.

Is the USA now on the threshold of another involvement in a groups “Ideology”? Are we putting the proper label on this new movement to de-humanize them to justify their removal from this Earth? This Philosopher thinks the USA needs to look back at its own development and expansion and labeling process to remove the natives from the land they call their own with their “New Ideology” Christianity “a nonviolent religion”.

The Apostle Paul, a Pillar in this “New Ideology” (Christianity) clearly stated that followers of “Christ” would not use military means to wage war to fight, but would use words, arguments and divine power to defeat competing idealisms. If the “News Media” thinks that we need to address a “New Crises” in the world, a new idealism replacing an existing idealism, we should look to our own idealism to address the issue with words, augments and divine power rather than military might.

Unfortunately the Apostle Paul in his efforts to explain the “Gospel” to the world only had half of the information he needed. Paul had firsthand experience with Jesus and only had secondhand knowledge of the “Personal Counselor” that Jesus had sent us to guide each of us through this life. Paul had secondhand knowledge from individuals who themselves did not fully understand what had been given to them with this new “Personal Counselor”. Thus Paul’s theology developed around using Jesus as an example to follow and created standards for the new followers of the Gospel to live by. This does not seem to be in alignment with what Jesus wanted for the world, he wanted his “Personal Counselor” to guide each of us though this life. It does seem the idealism of the USA is due for a Major Tune-up.

For more information on the development of “The Gospel”, that Jesus wanted us to have, see the Blog: http://anewparadigminchristianthinking.wordpress.com