Wednesday, April 9, 2008
The peoples right to leave?
What is the only state in the union of the United States that has the right of succession as defined in their state constitution? That would be Texas, the lone star state. Now when I mention this most people laugh and say that even if Texas wanted to do that, that the rest of the nation wouldn’t allow them to leave. Well this brings up the questions does a specific area if that area is large and has a substantial majority with in it have the right to make a new government with few if any ties to their previous government? In my opinion they do as long as they have true grievances against their mother nation. One example of this would be Tibet against China, you see Tibet has attempted to secede from China for a while now and ever time they get close or even attempt to peacefully protest China sends in the troops to break it up, imposing marshal law and killing anyone who refuses to do what they say. It is these types of things that would constitute actually grievances that might even call for a violent revolution against such a suppressive government. Currently, China has said that if they do not surrender to the punishment of China for trying to peacefully protest that eventually led to violent riots in the streets because of the presence of Chinese troops. So I would support any group that has actual grievances against a government such as suppression and hatred of their beliefs instead of just wanting to rule your own society and acting on it on a whim. This is my belief when it comes to the United States, which all states have an inherent right to succeed; however the other states also have the right to do everything in their power to prevent it short of starting a civil war, except when it is absolutely necessary.
The possibility of life not from earth
To most people when they hear three little letters they immediately toon out of the conversation, those letters are U.F.O or unidentified flying object, which is almost always used as a synonym for Alien space craft in our “modern unsuperstishus society.” However when our government talks about UFOs or uses the term they are in most instances talking about just that an Unidentified Flying object, usually a spy sadilight or perhaps a plain that is not on the government roster. Stupid I know, however I am not talking about the conspiracy theorist stuff hear, I am talking about the probability that there I life other then our selves in this universe or even this existence? So what is the realistic probability? Well lets think about this realistically and practically for just a second, there are billions and billions of galaxies, and in these galaxies there are billions even trillions of solar systems, in each solar system there are any where from zero to three hundred planet sized rocks to record, this is not to mention the possibility of multiple universes, something that has been discussed quite fervently by many people I know. So who is to say that we are the only ones to ever exist and will be the only ones ever to exist? For example if you believe in evolution and you do not believe that there are aliens in our existence, you are basically telling me that evolution is something that is known only to our planit, and that life can and will never exist on other planets because of what? In fact this theory supports the existence of other life. As well if you believe in a god, do you truly think that god made a trillion tiny asteroids floating in the void of space so that man kind can simply gaze at them? I don’t by that for a minute, god or the gods who or what ever supreme being you believe in always dos something purposely, with intention dos he, she, or them not? The existence of brothers and sisters of ours in the stars is real, now weather we will ever have contact or have had contact is something all together different.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Principles and Actions
By Aaron Roland Holloway
Recently, I have been reading a book called the Mass Psychology of Fascism.
It has been expounding my thoughts and knowledge of how other cultures think and the difference between what they think and what they do. Their beliefs and their actions are usually extremely different. Some would say they do not truly believe in what they profess to, that they use religion, society or even atheism, the lack of a religion, and abuse it for there own personal gain. While this would be a comforting truth I do not believe that this is the case. Hitler, even though he was half Jewish, fervently believed that the “true” Germans where and still are the superior race to every and all others that exist on the world. He used his catholic background and teaching to back him up, quoting from the bible scripture that “prove” that the Jews where inferior and that the white Germans or Arians, as he knew them were the strongest and most powerful race in the world. He believed that with everything that was in him, even until his dying breath. As did countless other dictators through out history; such as Richard the Lion Heart, that literally ate children alive on a burning spicit with in sight of the walls of the holiest city on earth, Jerusalem. He did this because he believed that he would bring about the end of the fighting. However, it did the opposite of what it was intended, it cased the Arabians to fight even that much harder to defend the city. Richard did everything in his power, including defiling bodies and throwing them over the city to achieve his goal for “Gods crusade”. This man, who is portrayed by modern media as a hero of an age of war bent on a holy crusade, was actually a mass murderer. Out of those who understand this, few say that he did what he said he believed in. While fewer still realize that these two men, Hitler and Richard, actually believed what they said. The thing was that they had a different view of or were willing to compromise on something that most that read and believed the same doctrine would not be willing to compromise on. It’s the same words on paper, the same sermons, the same feelings and desires. The only difference is that the vast majority, who would very much like to not be affiliated with these types of people, do not agree with their out come and translation of what the words on the paper, the sermons, and the feelings are pointing to. It’s kind of like when one person looks at an optical illusion of the old hag with a long jaw looking toward them or the young women with a beautiful necklace looking away from them. It’s the same picture; just some individuals have different perspectives then others. Not to say one is wrong or right, but rather to point out that there are those who have such a completely different perspective that they view something that most would call one thing and they see something totally different. An example would be; the majority of people in the world would view the bible and say “it’s a book, at the very least that teaches good moral values and a good message”. Still others would call it a holy book; however the general consensus in the world is that the bible is a good book. But there is a totally different side to this story; some would say that the bible is a book filed with intolerance and hate, war and violence and blind faith, a book that discourages learning. This is not what I see, but this class has taught me that what I see is not necessarily the only truth. Now for some things I am not willing to compromise. However, that doesn’t mean that I do not recognize the merit of the arguments against it. So I guess there are a few things that I have learned so far. The first is that there are absolutes. However those absolutes are in my own personal morals and might not be true for others, even though in my perception I might measure others by those morals. The second would be that I should not be afraid of those people in history that do bad things even if they use my moral code and come out with something that is completely different. What is true from one person’s perception is not true from another’s. And that we must acknowledge that bad things happened to others because of some one else’s perception of our beliefs and still have the courage to keep them.
Recently, I have been reading a book called the Mass Psychology of Fascism.
It has been expounding my thoughts and knowledge of how other cultures think and the difference between what they think and what they do. Their beliefs and their actions are usually extremely different. Some would say they do not truly believe in what they profess to, that they use religion, society or even atheism, the lack of a religion, and abuse it for there own personal gain. While this would be a comforting truth I do not believe that this is the case. Hitler, even though he was half Jewish, fervently believed that the “true” Germans where and still are the superior race to every and all others that exist on the world. He used his catholic background and teaching to back him up, quoting from the bible scripture that “prove” that the Jews where inferior and that the white Germans or Arians, as he knew them were the strongest and most powerful race in the world. He believed that with everything that was in him, even until his dying breath. As did countless other dictators through out history; such as Richard the Lion Heart, that literally ate children alive on a burning spicit with in sight of the walls of the holiest city on earth, Jerusalem. He did this because he believed that he would bring about the end of the fighting. However, it did the opposite of what it was intended, it cased the Arabians to fight even that much harder to defend the city. Richard did everything in his power, including defiling bodies and throwing them over the city to achieve his goal for “Gods crusade”. This man, who is portrayed by modern media as a hero of an age of war bent on a holy crusade, was actually a mass murderer. Out of those who understand this, few say that he did what he said he believed in. While fewer still realize that these two men, Hitler and Richard, actually believed what they said. The thing was that they had a different view of or were willing to compromise on something that most that read and believed the same doctrine would not be willing to compromise on. It’s the same words on paper, the same sermons, the same feelings and desires. The only difference is that the vast majority, who would very much like to not be affiliated with these types of people, do not agree with their out come and translation of what the words on the paper, the sermons, and the feelings are pointing to. It’s kind of like when one person looks at an optical illusion of the old hag with a long jaw looking toward them or the young women with a beautiful necklace looking away from them. It’s the same picture; just some individuals have different perspectives then others. Not to say one is wrong or right, but rather to point out that there are those who have such a completely different perspective that they view something that most would call one thing and they see something totally different. An example would be; the majority of people in the world would view the bible and say “it’s a book, at the very least that teaches good moral values and a good message”. Still others would call it a holy book; however the general consensus in the world is that the bible is a good book. But there is a totally different side to this story; some would say that the bible is a book filed with intolerance and hate, war and violence and blind faith, a book that discourages learning. This is not what I see, but this class has taught me that what I see is not necessarily the only truth. Now for some things I am not willing to compromise. However, that doesn’t mean that I do not recognize the merit of the arguments against it. So I guess there are a few things that I have learned so far. The first is that there are absolutes. However those absolutes are in my own personal morals and might not be true for others, even though in my perception I might measure others by those morals. The second would be that I should not be afraid of those people in history that do bad things even if they use my moral code and come out with something that is completely different. What is true from one person’s perception is not true from another’s. And that we must acknowledge that bad things happened to others because of some one else’s perception of our beliefs and still have the courage to keep them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)