The Pagan Pulpit – The Book of Rabyd 1:7 – ‘The Only Proper Use of Aggression is to Protect One’s Rights or the Rights of Others’

Happy Sun’s Day

Announcements: 

We don’t pray here – we figure God, the gods and goddesses, or whatever powers that be either know already, don’t give a fuck, or are busy with more important matters than our petty stuff. We also kind of assume that they expect us to do stuff that we can do for ourselves, and that we will do them ourselves and not be lazy. We also believe in being good friends, so we don’t presume on our friendship with the powers that be by asking them all the time for stuff while giving them nothing in return.

We also don’t take an offering here.  We figure the powers that be probably don’t need it.  Let’s be honest, offerings are not giving to the divine powers, they are given to an organization to support it.  Just being honest. God, the gods or whatever never see a dime, farthing or peso of that money; it all goes to the church, mosque or shrine.

Opening Song: ‘Paranoid” – Black Sabbath

Considered widely to be the first metal band and this one of the first metal songs.  I start by giving Black Sabbath props for being trail blazers.

Poem: “Unknown” – The Ruined ManImage may contain: one or more people and text

The problem with being real is being hated.  The problem with being fake is you’re a lying coward.

Meditation:

Image may contain: 1 person, text

Song of Preparation: “Non-Aggression Principle” – Liberation Animation 

I love this song,  it is a fun.  It also introduces today’s topic very well.

Text:

‘The Only Proper Use of Aggression is to Protect One’s Rights or the Rights of Others’ – The Book of Rabyd 1:7

Sermon:

The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is stated many ways but the basic gist of it is a combination of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and “love your neighbor as yourself”.  Every major religion in the world has something like this in it, but then all of them turn around and use fraud or even force to control others.

So leaving religion behind, it is simply that people have their rights and no one should use violence or lies to take them away.  If someone or group of someones does use violence to try to take rights away, the NAP simply states that the person whose rights are being threatened or people around them who see that their rights are being threatened have the right then to use violence in return in defense.

Aggression is further defined as the use of physical force, threatening the use of force or fraud.  This is not pacifism as the use of force or even the threat of force is allowable in actions that involve self-defense or the defense of others.  There are other types of force but the NAP is about physical force, threat of physical force or fraud.

This means a lot of other areas where things are about influence, politics and other types of force are not necessarily covered by the NAP.  However, if one thinks on this that means that much of what government does is a violation of this principle.  This really limits how much the government should do and puts it clear focus on the government as the force that protects the rights of its citizens and does not threaten them with force or trick people out of their rights through fraud.

On a personal level, this means that if I were to act in a violent manner, that means the one who I am acting on has made a decision to violate my rights or the rights of another person.  Other than that, it is never right for me to initiate violence and it is certainly never right for me to engage in fraud.  This part is actually more challenging in many ways than gripping about government.  One must always be first concerned that you are following the NAP before you judge others on their following it.  It is more a philosophy of personal responsibility than anything else.

Following the NAP leads to a practical morality.  There is nothing more frustrating on the one hand than people who, because of their politics, religion or other beliefs, think they have the right or force their viewpoint on others through law, violence or fraud. One the flip side, it is also frustrating to watch people stand aside while violence or fraud is perpetrated and they do nothing about it.  The NAP gives us a principle to guide us.  It is not perfect, but it is a lot better all others I have found so far and far more practically useful.

Closing Song: ‘Dizzy’ – Tommy Roe

I include this song this week because it was the popular song on the radio the day I was born.  My 50th birthday was this last week so this is more nostalgia than anything else. I like the video of a 1960s girl in a short skirt doing the 1960s dancing. Couldn’t fit that era more if you tried.

Parting Thought:

Image may contain: one or more people, text that says 'Do not tame the wolf inside you just because you've met someone who doesn't have the courage to handle you. Belle Estreller'

Be yourself.  If people can’t handle it, that is their problem, not yours.

I remain,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

The Book of Rabyd 1:6 – “People Do Not Have The Right to Take Away The Rights of Others”

Happy Sun’s Day

Text:

“People Do Not Have The Right to Take Away The Rights of Others” – The Book of Rabyd 1:6

Thoughts and Exposition:

The real key here to understanding rights that inalienable is that it means that everyone has them.  Truly understand rights then requires that while we all may have the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and property; it does not mean that we can exercises those rights at the expense of someone else’s rights.  You must respect the rights of others to truly understand what rights entail.  If you don’t, you have an improper understanding of rights.

It is morally wrong to force another to give up their rights so that you can have yours.  It morally bankrupt; in my opinion, to use any kind of force and power to exalt your rights over another.  This is something that has to be remembered because as much as we say – “I have my rights”,  we also need to say – “they have their rights” in the same breath.   It is this respect of rights as a concept that is just as important as respect of my own rights.  When we do this we are learning to see others as human beings.  It is this issue that if implemented would solve a ton of problems.  As much as I feel I have the right to stand on my rights, I must also allow others to stand on theirs.

This why I find the use of government today so repugnant.  Much of it is one side or the others trying to take power to use on others.  The Republicans try to seize power so they can use it against the Democrats and visa versa.  No one is trying to take government so they can genuinely defend the rights of all.  Libertarianism for me is simply a wonderful philosophy that seeks to actually see  the rights of all protected.  The goal of our politics then would be to stop the government from violating the rights of all individuals.

I have been using the issue of abortion to illustrate the problem when rights collide.  The right to life movement say the right of the child to live is not being respected, the pro-choice folks say the right of the woman to privacy which is connected to her rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness is being violated if she does not have the choice of an abortion.  The problem is we simply cannot play a game of two against one to decided who is right.  A single violated right by force is wrong.  The argument really centers on whether or not the child/fetus is genuinely a human being and thus has rights.  Pro-life folks say yes / pro-choice folks say no.  This is not going to be resolved because the arguments on both sides have problems.  I am not going to get into that because the arguments for both sides are legion as well.  My point is if a single right is being violated on an individual then the action is wrong and should not be allowed.

The problem with abortion is asking a question of personhood and at that point you are getting far more into metaphysics and theology than philosophy.  My personal position is to say I am pro-choice on one hand because I do not feel it is my right to force my viewpoint of when life begins on another, and it is a debatable point.  But I am also pro-life on the other hand, because I would hope that we would recognize our ignorance on when life truly and genuinely begins, and thus choose to err on the side of life because of that ignorance.

My point in all this is the debate is not what our rights are for those that follow the Book of Rabyd. Those are clearly understood.  The debate for me and for my family is to understand and know when rights are being brought into conflict either intentionally or unintentionally and coming up with solutions that both allow one to exercise their rights but not interfere with the rights of others.  This is the challenge of those who follow the Book of Rabyd.

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

The Pagan Pulpit – The Book of Rabyd 1:6 – “People Do Not Have The Right to Take Away The Rights of Others”

Happy Sun’s Day

Announcements: 

We don’t pray here – we figure God, the gods and goddesses, or whatever powers that be either know already, don’t give a fuck, or are busy with more important matters than our petty stuff. We also kind of assume that they expect us to do stuff that we can do for ourselves, and that we will do them ourselves and not be lazy. We also believe in being good friends, so we don’t presume on our friendship with the powers that be by asking them all the time for stuff while giving them nothing in return.

We also don’t take an offering here.  We figure the powers that be probably don’t need it.  Let’s be honest, offerings are not giving to the divine powers, they are given to an organization to support it.  Just being honest. God, the gods or whatever never see a dime, farthing or peso of that money; it all goes to the church, mosque or shrine.

Opening Song: “Stricken” – Disturbed

Poem: “The Scar” by Edward W. Raby, Sr. (Rough Draft) 

See the source image

Time heals all wounds

“Bullshit” I say

I have been down this road before

I have scars that still bleed inside

Internal bleeding of the soul

Seepage of pain within

Toxic soul-blood poisoning

Hidden behind my scars

The scar you left on me

Is like all the others

A covered scab

Hiding a slow bleeding wound

Another scar

A badge of survival

The poison blood inside fuel

The pain inside motivation 

I know this is the second poem I have written for the Pulpit in rough draft form without polishing them later in a Skald’s Tales and Poems but that is coming this week probably.

Meditation:

Image may contain: 1 person, eyeglasses, text that says '"I don't believe the majority always knows what's best for everyone.... Democracy without respect for individual rights sucks. It's just ganging up against the weird kid, and I'm always the weird kid. - -Penn Jillette'

Me too Penn, Me too.

Song of Preparation: “Anthem’ – Rush:

Text: 

“People Do Not Have The Right to Take Away The Rights of Others” – The Book of Rabyd 1:6

Sermon:

The real key here to understanding rights that inalienable is that it means that everyone has them.  Truly understand rights then requires that while we all may have the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and property; it does not mean that we can exercises those rights at the expense of someone else’s rights.  You must respect the rights of others to truly understand what rights entail.  If you don’t, you have an improper understanding of rights.

It is morally wrong to force another to give up their rights so that you can have yours.  It morally bankrupt; in my opinion, to use any kind of force and power to exalt your rights over another.  This is something that has to be remembered because as much as we say – “I have my rights”,  we also need to say – “they have their rights” in the same breath.   It is this respect of rights as a concept that is just as important as respect of my own rights.  When we do this we are learning to see others as human beings.  It is this issue that if implemented would solve a ton of problems.  As much as I feel I have the right to stand on my rights, I must also allow others to stand on theirs.

This why I find the use of government today so repugnant.  Much of it is one side or the others trying to take power to use on others.  The Republicans try to seize power so they can use it against the Democrats and visa versa.  No one is trying to take government so they can genuinely defend the rights of all.  Libertarianism for me is simply a wonderful philosophy that seeks to actually see  the rights of all protected.  The goal of our politics then would be to stop the government from violating the rights of all individuals.

I have been using the issue of abortion to illustrate the problem when rights collide.  The right to life movement say the right of the child to live is not being respected, the pro-choice folks say the right of the woman to privacy which is connected to her rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness is being violated if she does not have the choice of an abortion.  The problem is we simply cannot play a game of two against one to decided who is right.  A single violated right by force is wrong.  The argument really centers on whether or not the child/fetus is genuinely a human being and thus has rights.  Pro-life folks say yes / pro-choice folks say no.  This is not going to be resolved because the arguments on both sides have problems.  I am not going to get into that because the arguments for both sides are legion as well.  My point is if a single right is being violated on an individual then the action is wrong and should not be allowed.

The problem with abortion is asking a question of personhood and at that point you are getting far more into metaphysics and theology than philosophy.  My personal position is to say I am pro-choice on one hand because I do not feel it is my right to force my viewpoint of when life begins on another, and it is a debatable point.  But I am also pro-life on the other hand, because I would hope that we would recognize our ignorance on when life truly and genuinely begins, and thus choose to err on the side of life because of that ignorance.

My point in all this is the debate is not what our rights are for those that follow the Book of Rabyd. Those are clearly understood.  The debate for me and for my family is to understand and know when rights are being brought into conflict either intentionally or unintentionally and coming up with solutions that both allow one to exercise their rights but not interfere with the rights of others.  This is the challenge of those who follow the Book of Rabyd.

Closing Song: ‘Hurt’ – Johnny Cash:

I include this song at the end because I talked about it with some friends this week.  I suppose it is a simple reminded that all things, including our lives, end.  What legacy we leave is important. Johnny Cash speaks for a lot of people in this song when they near the end.  The regrets you have probably have more to do with hurts received and hurts given.

Parting Thought:

Image may contain: text

I remain,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

The Book of Rabyd 1:5 – ‘Everyone Has the Right to Property’

Happy Sun’s Day

Text:

“Everyone Has the Right to Property” – The Book of Rabyd 1:5

Thoughts and Exposition:

This is a new verse for the Book of Rabyd.  Most people don’t realize that the original Declaration of Independence had originally ‘life. liberty and property’.  Later editing changed it to the pursuit of happiness.  But the idea of the inherent right to property to anyone who owns it is something that has not always been recognized in history.  That changed with the Founding fathers as the notion of people having a right to translate their right to pursue their happiness.  As Ayn Rand wisely pointed out this means the right to property.

I would argue that this right is what defends the others as well.  Your Life. liberty and Pursuit of Happiness are yours and now one should be allowed to take them away from you.  This means you also have the right to defend what is yours.  But ownership of property being a right extends to all things that are yours.  The most important of which is ownership of self.  Self-ownership means to take responsibility for yourself and your own destiny instead of leaving in the hands of others.  You need to exercise your right to own private property to do this.

I often wonder if those who try to attack this right realize that what they are doing allows people to basically take away all the others. If my life is not mine, if my liberty is only granted and can be taken away, if my pursuit of happiness requires that someone else give it to me, then they are not rights but privileges.  The right to property is what brings in this concept of ownership of not only my stuff but my rights.

To think otherwise is to have the mentality of the thief and the societal leach. I make no apologies for saying this.  I people have the notion that other people don’t have a right to property, then they are perfectly OK with the notion that such property can be taken away. They also have no problem when people have their property taken from hem through taxation so they can be supported.  In short they envision people can think and work but the results in part belong to them even though they have done nothing to earn them. This justifies their stealing it or letting others do it for them.

See the source image

So we turn again to abortion.  The seeming conflict is that the woman has her right to liberty and pursuit what will make her happy.  The notion being that the fetus is her body and she owns it so she can dispose of it as she sees fit. The opposite side of the coin is that the child has he right to live and pursuit its happiness by living. The real issue is it possible for one person to really own another and I would say that there is some inherent ownership of ones’ self in such a right to property.

For me the question of abortion has long been a sticky one.  As a Christian I had pretty clear guidelines, but it was still troubling at times.  Mostly because reality is that natural abortion happens all the time and with far more frequency than people think.  Most are never known to even exist.

Post-Christian, the issues now falls to whether the fetus is a person.  If not, the nit has no right to ownership of self and all the other rights that go with that.  If yes, then he/she does and they have those rights. I am not sure I can answer the question definitively at this point but I still maintain that liberty and life are important in equal measure.  I hope the choice is life, because I consider abortion a waste of human potential, if nothing else.

The real question for me is should the state be allowed to interfere?  Once again we are still left to determining when a person becomes a person and the answer seems clear. Given all our rights and the notion of self-ownership, if the fetus can be proven to be a person then the answer is yes, but if not we still find ourselves in a controversy.  It seems with all the advances in science, we should be able to determine this. Then the right to property with its concept of self-ownership kicks in.  This still doesn’t give us a clear answer but we have two more principles left so we shall see.

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

The Pagan Pulpit – The Book of Rabyd 1:5 -“Everyone Has the Right to Property”

Happy Sun’s Day:

Announcements: 

We don’t pray here – we figure God, the gods and goddesses, or whatever powers that be either know already, don’t give a fuck, or are busy with more important matters than our petty stuff. We also kind of assume that they expect us to do stuff that we can do for ourselves, and that we will do them ourselves and not be lazy. We also believe in being good friends, so we don’t presume on our friendship with the powers that be by asking them all the time for stuff while giving them nothing in return.

We also don’t take an offering here.  We figure the powers that be probably don’t need it.  Let’s be honest, offerings are not giving to the divine powers, they are given to an organization to support it.  Just being honest. God, the gods or whatever never see a dime, farthing or peso of that money; it all goes to the church, mosque or shrine.

Opening Song: “Mr. Roboto” – Styx

I was joking this week with my daughter about using this song as a song about my grandson Otto.  All I would have to do is change the words a little to make this song about him.  That said, this actually is a pretty cool song made for a rock opera that dealt with dystopian future where rock and roll as well as other forms of free expression are outlawed.  Styx always was very good and their vocalist has a ton of range in this one.

Poem: “The Storm” by Edward W. Raby, Sr.:

Image result for odin wanderer storm

Wind, grey skies and pouring rain.

The Storm rages in my soul.

Fed by my inner pain.

Will I ever be whole?

Lightning flashes

Thunder rolls

I tighten my grip on the staff of my reality

Knowing only the treading of my feet

Boots grinding through grey mud

Soaked in sorrow, but my heart closed

Numb to the cold of The Grey

I struggle onward, not daring to feel

Lest my tears join the flood

And drown me in the rising tide.

I walk with the hope of seeing sunlight

I walk with the hope of feeling love

But right now, I feel nothing

So I will survive.

Soon, the wolf within will rise

The ravens will caw again

when the light breaks through.

Then I will laugh,

Once again I have become the storm

And I have become stronger

Note: This is still in rough draft form, but it is good enough I think to at least post it.  It needs refining but I like how it captures my struggles with depression at times. I will probably present this poem in it own post when it is more refined.

Meditation:

Image may contain: 1 person, text that says 'WHEN THINKING ABOUT LIFE, REMEMBER: NO AMOUNT OF GUILT CAN SOLVE THE PAST, AND NO AMOUNT OF ANXIETY CAN CHANGE THE FUTURE THEMINDUNLEASHED UNLEASHED'

Song of Preparation: “It’s My Life” – Bon Jovi

Text: 

Everyone has the Right to Property – The Book of Rabyd 1:5

Sermon:

This is a new verse for the Book of Rabyd.  Most people don’t realize that the original Declaration of Independence had originally ‘life. liberty and property’.  Later editing changed it to the pursuit of happiness.  But the idea of the inherent right to property to anyone who owns it is something that has not always been recognized in history.  That changed with the Founding fathers as the notion of people having a right to translate their right to pursue their happiness.  As Ayn Rand wisely pointed out this means the right to property.

I would argue that this right is what defends the others as well.  Your Life. liberty and Pursuit of Happiness are yours and now one should be allowed to take them away from you.  This means you also have the right to defend what is yours.  But ownership of property being a right extends to all things that are yours.  The most important of which is ownership of self.  Self-ownership means to take responsibility for yourself and your own destiny instead of leaving in the hands of others.  You need to exercise your right to own private property to do this.

I often wonder if those who try to attack this right realize that what they are doing allows people to basically take away all the others. If my life is not mine, if my liberty is only granted and can be taken away, if my pursuit of happiness requires that someone else give it to me, then they are not rights but privileges.  The right to property is what brings in this concept of ownership of not only my stuff but my rights.

To think otherwise is to have the mentality of the thief and the societal leach. I make no apologies for saying this.  I people have the notion that other people don’t have a right to property, then they are perfectly OK with the notion that such property can be taken away. They also have no problem when people have their property taken from hem through taxation so they can be supported.  In short they envision people can think and work but the results in part belong to them even though they have done nothing to earn them. This justifies their stealing it or letting others do it for them.

See the source image

So we turn again to abortion.  The seeming conflict is that the woman has her right to liberty and pursuit what will make her happy.  The notion being that the fetus is her body and she owns it so she can dispose of it as she sees fit. The opposite side of the coin is that the child has he right to live and pursuit its happiness by living. The real issue is it possible for one person to really own another and I would say that there is some inherent ownership of ones’ self in such a right to property.

For me the question of abortion has long been a sticky one.  As a Christian I had pretty clear guidelines, but it was still troubling at times.  Mostly because reality is that natural abortion happens all the time and with far more frequency than people think.  Most are never known to even exist.

Post-Christian, the issues now falls to whether the fetus is a person.  If not, the nit has no right to ownership of self and all the other rights that go with that.  If yes, then he/she does and they have those rights. I am not sure I can answer the question definitively at this point but I still maintain that liberty and life are important in equal measure.  I hope the choice is life, because I consider abortion a waste of human potential, if nothing else.

The real question for me is should the state be allowed to interfere?  Once again we are still left to determining when a person becomes a person and the answer seems clear. Given all our rights and the notion of self-ownership, if the fetus can be proven to be a person then the answer is yes, but if not we still find ourselves in a controversy.  It seems with all the advances in science, we should be able to determine this. Then the right to property with its concept of self-ownership kicks in.  This still doesn’t give us a clear answer but we have two more principles left so we shall see.

Closing Song: Amen – Halestorm:

Parting Thought:

Image may contain: text that says 'THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO GET UPSET ABOUT YOU SETTING BOUNDARIES ARE THE ONES WHO WERE BENEFITING FROM YOU HAVING NONE. POBYMAC#SPEAKLFE'

I remain,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

The Book of Rabyd 1:4 – ‘People Have the Right to Pursue Happiness’

Happy Sun’s Day

Text: 

“Everyone has the Right to Pursue Happiness” – The Book of Rabyd 1:4

Thoughts and Exposition:

Will Smith has a great line in the movie “The Pursuit of Happiness”.  He centers on the idea of how the founding fathers has enough wisdom to put in the word ‘pursuit’.  This is what is often forgotten in this right.  You do not have the right to be happy.  You do have the right to pursue what will make you happy or what you think will make you happy.  It does not include a safety net where the government bails you out if you fail.

I suppose it should be argued at this point that this right is equal to the other two already stated of life and liberty.  The issue here is that some people will be champion of people’s life and liberty but then will involve themselves in the affairs of others in such a way as to either meddle or try to restrict other’s pursuit of happiness by law or ordinance.  They think they know what would make others happy and try to use force or influence to make it so.

Truthfully, the respect for this right in others is the biggest litmus test of whether you genuinely treat people as human beings or objects.  The person who can see what would be better for someone else but does not act because he or she respects that person’s right to pursue their own happiness is a person who also is seeing them as a human being, not as something to manipulate.

I have been using the abortion debate throughout this discussion so I will use it again here.  The conflict is simple I think because a woman might argue that having a child would not be in line with her pursuit of happiness.  The counter argument then comes that you are violating the child or fetus’ right to live.  If we are truly seeing the two rights as equals then we are pretty much left in a stalemate and so the issue falls to other things.  The right to happiness doesn’t really help us here either because we could make an argument for both sides for happiness.

In abortion we have a conflict of rights but the question is which right has superiority over others.  If we give certain rights superiority over others then how can we say we are treating them all equally?  Some other factor, must come into play to settle this quandary and it may be Rabyd 1:5 which we will talk about in the next week.

For me personally this is why I try to conduct myself (and I hope my family conducts themselves with the idea as well) of not meddling in other people’s affairs.  If we do feel we have a better way for people to live that might aid them in their pursuit of happiness; we do not force the issue, but attempt to persuade people to that end.  Our goal is not to meddle, but we will certainly act in compassion if we see a need and react if asked to help.

Part of respecting the pursuit of happiness is respecting the need for people to struggle through that issue on their own.  To impose my view of what would make them happy on them would be wrong.  It is wrong because it does not recognize the other person’s humanity or their right to pursuit what they believe will make them happy.

One thing needs to be said here.  People who achieve happiness are often ones who find out the pursuit of it involves letting other be happy.  The one great obstacle to our pursuit is think other people need to live up to our standards of what they should do and be. When they don’t do this, then disappointment leads to unhappiness.  Part of being happy and pursuing it is learning a) You will not find it in others and b) You will never be happy as long as you are trying to impose your view of it on others.

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

The Pagan Pulpit – The Book of Rabyd 1:4 – “People Have the Right to Pursue Happiness”

Happy Sun’s Day

Announcements:

We don’t pray here – we figure God, the gods and goddesses, or whatever powers that be either know already, don’t give a fuck, or are busy with more important matters than our petty stuff. We also kind of assume that they expect us to do stuff that we can do for ourselves, and that we will do them ourselves and not be lazy. We also believe in being good friends, so we don’t presume on our friendship with the powers that be by asking them all the time for stuff while giving them nothing in return.

We also don’t take an offering here.  We figure the powers that be probably don’t need it.  Let’s be honest, offerings are not giving to the divine powers, they are given to an organization to support it.  Just being honest. God, the gods or whatever never see a dime, farthing or peso of that money; it all goes to the church, mosque or shrine.

Opening Song: Never Give Up – Motivational Video

I don’t normally post motivational videos but I do listen to them from time to time.  I think I might consider creating a morning playlist as I write.  This might be the one to kick it off.

Poem: ‘Go Get it’ – Will Smith – From the movie The Pursuit of Happiness.
See the source image
Meditation:

No photo description available.

Song of Preparation: “Happy” – Pharrell Williams

Text: 

“Everyone has the Right to Pursuit  Happiness” – The Book of Rabyd 1:4

Sermon:

Will Smith has a great line in the movie “The Pursuit of Happiness”.  He centers on the idea of how the founding fathers has enough wisdom to put in the word ‘pursuit’.  This is what is often forgotten in this right.  You do not have the right to be happy.  You do have the right to pursue what will make you happy or what you think will make you happy.  It does not include a safety net where the government bails you out if you fail.

I suppose it should be argued at this point that this right is equal to the other two already stated of life and liberty.  The issue here is that some people will be champion of people’s life and liberty, but then involve themselves in the affairs of others in such a way as to either meddle or try to restrict other’s pursuit of happiness by law or ordinance.  They think they know what would make others happy and try to use force or influence to make it so.

Truthfully, the respect for this right in others is the biggest litmus test of whether you genuinely treat people as human beings or objects.  The person who can see what would be better for someone else but does not act because he or she respects that person’s right to pursue their own happiness is a person who also is seeing them as a human being, not as something to manipulate.

I have been using the abortion debate throughout this discussion so I will use it again here.  The conflict is simple I think because a woman might argue that having a child would not be in line with her pursuit of happiness.  The counter argument then comes that you are violating the child or fetus’ right to live.  On the front of pursuit of happiness both have this right and so we are still at draw.

If we are truly seeing the two rights as equals then we are pretty much left in a stalemate and so the issue falls to other things.  In abortion, we have a conflict of rights but the question is which right has superiority over others.  If we give certain rights superiority over others then how can we say we are treating them all equally?  Some other factor, must come into play to settle this quandary, and it may be Rabyd 1:5 which we will talk about in the next week.

For me personally this is why I try to conduct myself (and I hope my family conducts themselves with the idea as well) of not meddling in other people’s affairs.  If we do feel we have a better way for people to live that might aid them in their pursuit of happiness; we do not force the issue, but attempt to persuade people to that end.  Our goal is not to meddle, but we will certainly act in compassion if we see a need and react if asked to help.  Part of respecting the pursuit of happiness is respecting the need for people to struggle through that issue on their own.  To impose my view of what I think would make them happy on them would be wrong.  It is wrong because it does not recognize the other person’s humanity or their right to pursuit what they believe will make them happy.

Closing Song: “Tacky” – Weird Al Yankovic

Having a little fun to end it.  Weird Al in a classic.  Have a laugh and pursuit what you feel will make you happy.  It is your right.

Parting Thought: 

Image may contain: one or more people and text

A crude statement I suppose, but true. In your pursuit of happiness – be careful to not be drawn into things that will get you off the path.  For instance, by giving a fuck about certain people who you suspect don’t give as much a fuck about you as you do them. Just keep walking toward your happiness.

I remain,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

Of Wolves and Ravens – Self-Reliance: Leaned Out and Building Strength

Happy Tyr’s Day

Discussion:

The thing about the Nine Noble Virtues (NNV) is that the definition of self-reliance is simply ‘the spirit of independence’ and I find the simplicity of that definition to be its greatest strength. The rest of the virtue simply extends that out to the family, tribe and nation but the definition is that self-reliance is ‘the spirit of independence’. Independence is defined as free from outside control, not dependent on another for living and subsistence and thinking and acting for yourself.  To be self-reliant means to embrace the process by which you live in freedom of choice, lifestyle and thought.

There is probably no virtue of the NNV that I resonate with more. Liberty and the freedom that goes with it, is something I hold very dear. I get more angry about people trying to control me, make me dependent on them or trying to tell me what to think and do than anything else. I will not be controlled.

I also get mad when I watch people in my country casually sacrifice their rights and freedoms on the altar of security.  Dependence makes you less secure not more secure. You want security? Embrace the spirit of independence that allows you to secure as much of it as you can for yourself and by yourself. There is really no true security in his world, so live free so that way you at least you will have a wonderful life without fear.

There are two obstacles to self-reliance and both of them are internal.  1) Is to attach to many things to yourself, so that you are so obligated to other things and people who you never really can make a choice about what you want.  2) To not strengthen yourself enough to stand on your own. I say both are internal because to become dependent involves a choice to do so.

To the Wolves and Ravens:

Needs (Geri):

People thrive more in freedom.  They become more of what they are capable of, when they have the liberty and freedom to pursue what makes the happy and fulfilled. Now, I don’t care what circumstances surround you, this need can always be fulfilled.  The government, religion and other factors really cannot bind a truly free person. The Virtue is always livable.  It is something we need.

The problem with this is we need to spend time strengthening ourselves and not weighing ourselves down with obligations that really do not serve us.  We should act on what gives us Joy rather than what others think we should do. It is why I embrace minimalism as a part of my philosophy. It allows me to lean myself out so that I can concentrate more on strengthening the things that give me joy.  I will talk more about the aspects of my minimalism the next cycle, but if there is any key to maintaining an attitude to independence, it starts there.

Wants (Freki):

Yes, I want self-reliance.  The one thing that I have learned is that dependence can lead to disaster.  I was very dependent on others in my last job; and quite frankly it is what bit me in the ass in the end, because those people proved untrustworthy.  I want to be in a place that even if relationships turn out to be false again, it doesn’t throw me off because I am not dependent on them.

Reason (Huginn):

Reason tells me that I must make decisions that regularly reflect on the question of do I need this or do I want this?  To many times we are following the impulses of what we want without thought of how dependent we are becoming on others to get them.  We also don’t think of how that new thing or relationship might make us obligated to the point we lose some of our freedom. I need and want self-reliance and we will not get it by simply following our impulses.  We need instead to be very deliberate about our choices in who we are in relationships with and what things we take on responsibility for.  That requires thought every time.

Wisdom (Muninn):

Wisdom tells is that liberty, freedom and self-reliance are precious things that need to be guarded and maintained. They are not easily won and so they should not easily be discarded. This constant vigilance of mind and heart is the price for it, but the benefits are truly better than the alternative.

Conclusion:

Self-reliance is something I strive for.  I have to on the one hand not bring anything in my life that drains it and I also have to strengthen myself in ways so I can maintain it. There is a constant battle here but one that is well worth it at the end of the day.

I remain,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

Of Wolves and Ravens – Religion and Leadership

Happy Tyr’s Day

Introduction:

If there has been one thing I have learned in the last few month’s it is that people for some reason trust a person who is more religious than one who is not.  I am not sure what the congregation reacted the strongest to when I left my last church, the fact that I had an emotional affair, or that I left the faith.  I think if had been just the first I might have gotten off with lesser consequences from them but the notion that I, a pastor, had a crisis of faith seemed to bother them more than the affair.  At least for some.

There is a prevailing notion that a religious leader is more honest and truthful than one who is not. We see it in politics every year as one candidate or another with come out and declare their faith, quote from the Bible or declare how their faith in God has made them a better candidate than the other one.

I know for myself I have noted a change in how people perceive what I say.  I even had one guy say my opinion was now more invalid because I no longer had faith.  So much for basing assessment of validity on reason and the rules of logic.  The truth is while we may gravitate to religious leaders, they my be even more damning as far as leadership direction and motivation than their non-religious counterparts.

Does being religious make a person a better leader or just a more devious one? One that uses the politics of religion to get votes and support.  To the wolves and ravens:

Needs (Geri):

Does a good leader need to be religious?  I am not sure high ethics and morality are found in being religious. I mean even in Christianity, the ethics of Christians can get inconsistent and even diabolical.  The Calvinist doctrine of election is most certainly something that led to the American notion of manifest destiny that probably single-handed was the most responsible philosophy that lead to the western expansion of the United States and the wiping out of the ‘non-elect’ Native Americans.  Not exactly a positive high ethical moment when you use faith to justify genocide and theft. I don’t think there is any need for a leader to be religious at all because their religion being a force for good or bad really can depend on the religion and its worldview.

Wants (Freki):

Do we then still want a leader to be religious? I guess that would depend on who you are.  Christians want Christian leaders; Muslims want Islamic leader, etc.  Why? Because then those groups know their values have a better chance of being respected.  The problem is this same issue becomes a way of excluding other faiths and systems of understanding the world. It should also be noted that religion more often than not causes people to believe things about reality that are not true and for that to affect public policy is dangerous.  People want religious leaders because they want to push that particular faith’s agenda, not because being religious makes a leader a better or more sound one.

Reason (Huginn):

My problem with bringing reason into this discussion is that leadership and following one often has much more to do emotion.  Very few honestly assess a leader for their leadership qualities.  Reason actually tells us that people are stupid and follow people because those people share the same associations with them. Even of that person’s character is suspect, they will still follow them because they are ‘one of us’.

 

Image may contain: 1 person, text

Donald Trump and evangelical Christians are a classic case in point. During the primaries Ben Carson supporters were basing Trump as immoral due to his past associations with Democrats and the fact he was divorced a remarried several times.  There was also the fact that he had affairs while he was married.  As an example of Christian moral character, Donald Trump was and is not the best, Yet, the moment it was clear he was the candidate of choice, they flipped and started saying what a godly Christian man he was.  Yeah, evangelicals being hypocrites once again is not new, but this was the most blatant flip-flop I had ever seen and I was still a minister at the time.

See the source image

From a reason standpoint being religious is the reasonable thing to do if you want religious people to blindly follow you, so Trump immediately made a show of getting prayed for and quoting the Bible.  He was elected with a majority of Evangelical support.  So it gets you elected but it’s obvious that being religious also gets people to leave their ethical standards to vote for you.

See the source image

Wisdom (Muninn):

Wisdom when it looks at history cannot support the notion that a leader being a zealous religious devotee is a good idea. Religion has been used to justify more wars, genocides, rapes and other things no rational caring person would consider good.  It takes religion to make otherwise good people do evil things.  Give such a person power and you have magnified the evil that he can make good people do. Power in the wrong hands is already dangerous, religious zealots in leadership magnify this a hundred fold.

Conclusion:

I want to make it clear  here, I am not really saying you can’t be in leadership and be religious.  I am saying that probably given that we don’t need a leader to be religious to be effective, nor is it always wanted. Reason and wisdom say that it actually might not be  good idea for a leader to be a zealot religiously in order to be fair to people of all faiths or those who lack faith at all.

I want to make it also clear Trump’s morality is not the issue here with me.  I really don’t care as long as a leader is effective what his bedroom habits are.  This issue for me is the danger of those who are religious who follow him, like the Evangelicals in how simply because a man quotes the Bible and bows his head in prayer, he must be godly. Therefore those same Evangelicals will follow him to damnation with the country and liberty as collateral damage.  It might actually be more damning to freedom and liberty for a leader to be religious in truth.

Personally, I have found it interesting that people challenge the truth of what I say these days far more.  Now if this was purely about lies told in the past, i could understand it to an extent.  But it seems to be more than that.  I am not ‘one of us’ with a lot of people anymore and so the tribalism of life comes in more fully. The real funny part is I have actually gotten more honest in the last few months than I have been in a long time.  So much so, some people don’t like it.

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

The Rabyd Skald – The Midterms – How I Am Voting. (Hint – Libertarian)

Happy Tyr’s Day – It’s also Election Day here in the United States.

It would normally be the day for Wolves and Ravens, but there is so much to cover as a political scientist as far as elections right now, and not all of it fits a philosophical analysis; so this will be a Rabyd Skald and I am going to tell you how I am voting.

I spoke last week on Voting and told you that the truth is there is a higher chance of any of us going to the election and being killed on the way in a car accident, than that our vote would matter. For all you thrill seekers, here is my guide to how to vote here in the great state of Michigan.

Governor / Senate / House and State Legislature – You can keep voting for the same two parties and get the same results over and over again or Vote outside that line – me I am voting Libertarian Party.  The Libertarians last election gained a lot in Michigan by passing a certain mark.  It means they got their own primary ballots and for that to continue need to keep that percentage.  I am pretty much voting libertarian straight ticket on this one.  No names required because any libertarian candidate will be truly smaller government and less government red tape and involvement is my hope and dream.

Michigan The Ballot Proposals

Proposal 1 – Marijuana Legalization

Yes.  I am going to be blunt here. Get it Blunt?  While smoking weed is on my bucket list, it is not something I have actually done.  The real reason I am doing this is the current approach to drugs as in fighting a drug war is actually quite ineffective.  This drug in particular is less harmful in all respects than alcohol and only stereotyping keeps people’s opinions of it negative. The only people who really benefit from the drug war are the police (who us it as justification for bigger budgets and more power), the prison industry (who needs prisoners preferably ones that are docile like MJ users), the pharmaceutical industry and alcohol industries (these later two don’t like competition).  This is why you will see all these groups lobbying so hard against legalization.  Yes vote here please.  Time to end the stupidity.

See the source image

Proposal 2 – Redistricting Committee

In its most simplistic terms, this basically creates a citizens committee in charge creating the voting districts instead of leaving it to Legislature. I am not really sure about this one but I know both the Republicans and Democrats don’t like it.  That means it might actually be a good thing.  Yes on this one too, simply because I like pissing the major parties off.

Proposal 3 – Automatic Voter Registration and Earlier Voting Measures.

This means when you get your driver’s license or state ID you are automatically registered to vote.  There is also a provision for getting an absentee ballot without having to give a reason and being able to use it to vote up to two weeks early. I don’t really see any negatives here.  It’s any body’s guess as to if it will actually improve voter turnout. Yes.

National Politics:

On the national stage of course the Senate is going to be a long haul for the Democrats.  They not only have to fight to keep a lot of seats, if they want to gain ground they have to upset Republicans. they have to win 28 races to gain the senate..  The Republicans simply have to win seven races and they keep the senate. In the house well, it’s an every two-year thing, we will see how it goes.  I predicting the elephants will continue to hold the senate and the house but will lose a little ground.

As a political scientist, I am just enjoying the show.  Pass the popcorn.  Although I will probably enjoy seeing Bohemian Rhapsody with my daughter more than these election results to analyze.

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!