The Tribe's Reaction to Tim Tebow
Tim Tebow isn't speaking for God; he is speaking to his God, as is his right in freedom.
It isn't at all clear that Tim Tebow believes God cares about who wins a football game.
If I understand the concept of God, then who speaks for God? The practical answer to that is, any one of us with a long weekend to kill, which happens with alarming frequency in the world.
If it offends, then look away. Isn't that -one- of the essential aspects of peer based freedom in America when we share the commons? Because we share this existence in our free political context as peers, not emperor wannabees.
Tim Tebow makes no demand upon any of us by his mere existence and joy and celebration and thankfullness.
What is most revealing about the Tim Tebow 'controversy' is the source of the hairshirt that he represents to some of the tribe-- as if his existence and choices were an affront to others.
I am not a Christian. I am a devout non-aligned agnostic, grateful to a largely benevolent universe for my time and mote of heat and light and opportunities given to me here in this wondrous playground. But I love freedom, and recognize that one of the keystones of cherishing that freedom is respecting his.
One of the most important ways we defend freedom in America is to respect the freedom of others. Christians. Gays. Businessmen. Athletes. Artists. Vegetarians. Meat eaters. Atheists.
Even the odd agnostic.
Freedom ultimately means, freedom from each other except by free association, tempered by recognition that the mere existence of each other in the public square is not the same as forced association. Freedom demands tolerance and forbearance(failure to enforce, as in, uniformity of thought or opinion or association)or else, there is no freedom. Our FF gave us the tools for free association; especially the 1st Amendment. It is an under-appreciated aspect of the 1st it is ultimately a tool for free association, and a tool which operates in two directions: when we freely speak, we are also freely heard. When we freely speak, we are freely identified as friend or fool. When we freely practice our religion, ditto. And here is the key element to freedom: no matter how each of us freely defines friend; no matter how each of us freely defines fool. The goal being, a peaceful tool of free association.
The 1st Amendment is 1st for a reason. Free association is the keystone of freedom, and the 1st amendment is its most powerful tool; it operates in two directions. Our FF were brilliant for realizing this.
Freedom is not the freedom to sprint headlong across the public square, oblivious to the existence of others. Freedom is the freedom to navigate the public square, arriving at our separate destinations, mindful of the existence of others. The 1st Amendment is an illuminating navigation aid which permits us all to peacefully navigate. Tim Tebow practicing his freedom is not a compunction to steer either towards or away from Tim Tebow, the choice is yours and mine, and our systematic encouragement to freely express our thought and religion is the necessary illumination required for all of us to peacefully choose..
Freedom is also an impediment to the totalitarian wishes of existentially terrified children, some driven by their overwhelming fealty to their atavistic herd mentality genes. AKA, America's once external and today largely internal political struggle.
There, I used the most used and least defined word in all of politics: "Politics."
Politics: the art and science of getting what we want from others using any means short of actual violence. mega-politics: the superset that includes violence.
What some want is "to be left alone." What others want is "to ride others like a tribal property pony as a birthright, modulated only by ability to be ridden." Those are both political and are also mutually exclusive.
Showing posts with label religion religious freedom God 1st Amendment BoR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion religious freedom God 1st Amendment BoR. Show all posts
Friday, January 13, 2012
Monday, December 31, 2007
Religious Freedom in America
Buongiorno specie al mio preferito!
Full disclosure. I am not only not Italian(well, partially,) neither am I Catholic nor Christian as well. You'd think with my pre-occupation with religious themes that I was at least a Lutheran Evangelical. Sorry if I've misled.
I am a devout non-aligned agnostic theist. I believe in a God, my Creator, that I am not permitted to define. He defined me, not the other way around. That is my place in existence, in Creation in this Universe.
My only beliefs in regards to either church or corporate religion is the certain knowledge that they are both man made constructs, but logic prohibits me from extending that certain knowledge to God, my Creator.
I'm here. I once wasn't. My 'creation' is no more at question than my existence. Logic demands that I acknowledge not just the possibility, but the absolute certainty of the existence of at least one form of God/Creator, and that example is 'the Universe as it is.' So, on the scoreboard being kept 'evidence of God/Creator', I see it as 1-0, God's favor.
There may be other examples, but as a devout non-aligned agnostic theist, "I don't know." I only know that I can't set conditionals for my own existence/creation, I can only acknowledge both. The topic of defining God is way above my pay grade as a member of the merely Created.
I am not antagonistic towards man made religion and church. I am, however curious as to how much of that activity is based on the jarring(to me, if nobody else) phenomenon of "Rules for God." I am amazed that members of the merely Created can allow themselves to start off on an intellectual journey that begins with "God is..." or "God wants...." or "God isn't..." or "God must be ..." and so on, as if it was logically possible for the merely Created to establish "Rules for God/Creator", or better, "Conditionals for my own Existence." I am equally as stunned when non-agnostic atheists assert those rules for their own existence as I am non-agnostic theists, i.e., together, not 'believers' but 'knowers' on the topic of God/Creator.
So that leaves "illogically possible," and history is nothing but endlessly creative "Rules for God" asserted by the merely Created, both by theists and atheists, both of who exist, as they are, in the Universe as it is, and once did not.
"In order to have Created us, God performed per the Book of Genesis(written by who?)and no other way. God was not permitted to employ Evolution, so say we, the merely Created."
Stunning in its illogic(I know, it is a matter of faith --in ancient mankind--, not logic...), but matched equally by the stunning illogic of "Here is evidence of Evolution, therefore, The Book of Genesis is art, therefore there is no God."
As a devout non-aligned agnostic theist, I cannot permit myself to entertain any concept that starts off with "Rules for God" established by the merely Created. I can't tell God/Creator of the Universe, as it is, with me newly in it, how to bring about that which already happened, as if a violation of any such Rule for God would void my actual existence. That is nonsense.
God, between you and me, you do not require my permission or blessing or agreement to have employed Evolution to bring me about. The truth of that impacts only petty man made political struggles, the political supremacy of some man made constructs down here in the stink and grime, which we have formulated for our own purposes.
A strange co-traveller to 'Rules for God" is "Rules for Intelligence." It goes like this. "Intelligence spontaneously appeared in the Universe, as it is, about 4 billion years after The Big Bang. It appeared spontaneously in a far arm of the spinning Milky Way galaxy on the 3rd planet circling a minor star. The only intelligent acts of creation appeared after that moment, and all acts before that moment in time were cold process. So, mankind represents creative intelligence, but that which created mankind is not intelligence, it is cold process."
To which I say, nonsense. It is nothing but parochial "Rules for Intelligence." I say, it is 'turtles all the way down.' Those turtles are either all 'cold process' or 'intelligence' , unless we apply a totally arbitrary 'Rule for Intelligence.' That which created us has also inescapably created all that we create, good or bad. We can make up all the parochial stories we want, does not change the Universe, as it is, nor our place in it.
There is no existential comfort to be found in the 'First Creator' Paradox, you know, "If there was a first Creator, then who created the first Creator, therefore, there was no first Creator." That is pretty slick until it is reflected back: "If there was a first Cold Process, then what Cold Process created the first Cold Process, therefore, there was no first Cold Process."
Get over it. We exist. We once did not. The existential paradox is unsolvable. It makes no difference if we are intelligence all the way down, or cold process all the way down. Either way, it is nothing but turtles all the way down. If existence is just 'the Universe, as it is,' by what set of 'Rules for God' do we declare "Not God Enough? Not Creator enough? Not Miracle enough?" Existence is a miracle. The un-scratchable existential itch of this miracle, this singularity, this paradox, has led mankind to congregate around the singularity and ponder religion.
Well, 'stuff' sure enough happens around singularities, especially when naked sweaty apes attempt to formulate legislation around same.
Since the prohibition in our 1st Amendment does not address a specific 'R'eligion per se, such as Christianity, but the meta-concept 'religion', a definition of the meta-concept 'religion' is required to understand the Amendment. Yet, not only is a suitable government "definition of religion" lacking, it appears to me to be prohibited.
My search for a meta-definition of 'religion' fortunately occurred in the context of a free America. As I looked for a meta-definition, I formulated my own, as follows.
Religion, to me, as a meta-definition, is the man made existential search for answers to the following two questions: Why am I here, and what am I supposed to be doing now as a result of that?
Every human being ever created, theists and atheists alike, actually answers those questions by living his life, even if never asked, by expending the finite mote of heat and light granted to each of us in this miracle of existence. We answer those questions whether we consciously search for the answers or not, and yet when we consciously search, to me, we are engaged in religion. In that light, the brilliance of our first Amendment is glaring, positioned as it is at the very beginning of an Individual Bill of Rights.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of why you are here, or what you are supposed to be doing now as a result of that. You are free to live your life and answer those questions yourself.
Has a very nice "One skin, one driver" feel to it. I am blown away by the brilliance of our Founding Fathers for so carefully attempting to define Freedom from Oppression, and I am equally blown away by the persistence of the mob to bring oppression back.
How does the mob do that? Through political means. Watch how carefully any one of us can turn religion into politics, just by rephrasing the questions:
Why are we here, and what are we supposed to be doing now as a result of that?
Excuse me. Doesn't that presuppose that there is just one answer to the original question? Doesn't the OneSizeFitsAll nature of posing the question like that define statism/oppression? Isn't that exactly the kind of question that a free people should be wary of?
This is the basic global political struggle, the individual vs. the tribe. How much of your life belongs to the tribe/state, how much belongs to you? The American experiment is an attempt to codify an Individual Bill of Rights, a suggestion to the mob that the most fundamental right of each of us is to be free from the unfettered overwhelming force of all of us, and that is a concept worth mobbing up to defend. This interpretation of the American experiment is an impediment to the political goals of the herdists/statists among us, who would prefer to emphasize singular answers to the fundamental question of religion, and who require unfettered application of the overwhleming force of all of us against any of us in order to achieve that.
As you listen to modern American politics in 2008, listen closely to the tone of the debate, both from the GOP and the Democratic party, or as a wise man[1] refers to them collectively, "The National Party." See if you can detect anything but a 'free fall' to the concept that OneSizeFitsAll. There is no longer even lip service being paid to anything but.
Reguarda,
Frediano
[1] Nessus
Buongiorno specie al mio preferito!
Full disclosure. I am not only not Italian(well, partially,) neither am I Catholic nor Christian as well. You'd think with my pre-occupation with religious themes that I was at least a Lutheran Evangelical. Sorry if I've misled.
I am a devout non-aligned agnostic theist. I believe in a God, my Creator, that I am not permitted to define. He defined me, not the other way around. That is my place in existence, in Creation in this Universe.
My only beliefs in regards to either church or corporate religion is the certain knowledge that they are both man made constructs, but logic prohibits me from extending that certain knowledge to God, my Creator.
I'm here. I once wasn't. My 'creation' is no more at question than my existence. Logic demands that I acknowledge not just the possibility, but the absolute certainty of the existence of at least one form of God/Creator, and that example is 'the Universe as it is.' So, on the scoreboard being kept 'evidence of God/Creator', I see it as 1-0, God's favor.
There may be other examples, but as a devout non-aligned agnostic theist, "I don't know." I only know that I can't set conditionals for my own existence/creation, I can only acknowledge both. The topic of defining God is way above my pay grade as a member of the merely Created.
I am not antagonistic towards man made religion and church. I am, however curious as to how much of that activity is based on the jarring(to me, if nobody else) phenomenon of "Rules for God." I am amazed that members of the merely Created can allow themselves to start off on an intellectual journey that begins with "God is..." or "God wants...." or "God isn't..." or "God must be ..." and so on, as if it was logically possible for the merely Created to establish "Rules for God/Creator", or better, "Conditionals for my own Existence." I am equally as stunned when non-agnostic atheists assert those rules for their own existence as I am non-agnostic theists, i.e., together, not 'believers' but 'knowers' on the topic of God/Creator.
So that leaves "illogically possible," and history is nothing but endlessly creative "Rules for God" asserted by the merely Created, both by theists and atheists, both of who exist, as they are, in the Universe as it is, and once did not.
"In order to have Created us, God performed per the Book of Genesis(written by who?)and no other way. God was not permitted to employ Evolution, so say we, the merely Created."
Stunning in its illogic(I know, it is a matter of faith --in ancient mankind--, not logic...), but matched equally by the stunning illogic of "Here is evidence of Evolution, therefore, The Book of Genesis is art, therefore there is no God."
As a devout non-aligned agnostic theist, I cannot permit myself to entertain any concept that starts off with "Rules for God" established by the merely Created. I can't tell God/Creator of the Universe, as it is, with me newly in it, how to bring about that which already happened, as if a violation of any such Rule for God would void my actual existence. That is nonsense.
God, between you and me, you do not require my permission or blessing or agreement to have employed Evolution to bring me about. The truth of that impacts only petty man made political struggles, the political supremacy of some man made constructs down here in the stink and grime, which we have formulated for our own purposes.
A strange co-traveller to 'Rules for God" is "Rules for Intelligence." It goes like this. "Intelligence spontaneously appeared in the Universe, as it is, about 4 billion years after The Big Bang. It appeared spontaneously in a far arm of the spinning Milky Way galaxy on the 3rd planet circling a minor star. The only intelligent acts of creation appeared after that moment, and all acts before that moment in time were cold process. So, mankind represents creative intelligence, but that which created mankind is not intelligence, it is cold process."
To which I say, nonsense. It is nothing but parochial "Rules for Intelligence." I say, it is 'turtles all the way down.' Those turtles are either all 'cold process' or 'intelligence' , unless we apply a totally arbitrary 'Rule for Intelligence.' That which created us has also inescapably created all that we create, good or bad. We can make up all the parochial stories we want, does not change the Universe, as it is, nor our place in it.
There is no existential comfort to be found in the 'First Creator' Paradox, you know, "If there was a first Creator, then who created the first Creator, therefore, there was no first Creator." That is pretty slick until it is reflected back: "If there was a first Cold Process, then what Cold Process created the first Cold Process, therefore, there was no first Cold Process."
Get over it. We exist. We once did not. The existential paradox is unsolvable. It makes no difference if we are intelligence all the way down, or cold process all the way down. Either way, it is nothing but turtles all the way down. If existence is just 'the Universe, as it is,' by what set of 'Rules for God' do we declare "Not God Enough? Not Creator enough? Not Miracle enough?" Existence is a miracle. The un-scratchable existential itch of this miracle, this singularity, this paradox, has led mankind to congregate around the singularity and ponder religion.
Well, 'stuff' sure enough happens around singularities, especially when naked sweaty apes attempt to formulate legislation around same.
Since the prohibition in our 1st Amendment does not address a specific 'R'eligion per se, such as Christianity, but the meta-concept 'religion', a definition of the meta-concept 'religion' is required to understand the Amendment. Yet, not only is a suitable government "definition of religion" lacking, it appears to me to be prohibited.
My search for a meta-definition of 'religion' fortunately occurred in the context of a free America. As I looked for a meta-definition, I formulated my own, as follows.
Religion, to me, as a meta-definition, is the man made existential search for answers to the following two questions: Why am I here, and what am I supposed to be doing now as a result of that?
Every human being ever created, theists and atheists alike, actually answers those questions by living his life, even if never asked, by expending the finite mote of heat and light granted to each of us in this miracle of existence. We answer those questions whether we consciously search for the answers or not, and yet when we consciously search, to me, we are engaged in religion. In that light, the brilliance of our first Amendment is glaring, positioned as it is at the very beginning of an Individual Bill of Rights.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of why you are here, or what you are supposed to be doing now as a result of that. You are free to live your life and answer those questions yourself.
Has a very nice "One skin, one driver" feel to it. I am blown away by the brilliance of our Founding Fathers for so carefully attempting to define Freedom from Oppression, and I am equally blown away by the persistence of the mob to bring oppression back.
How does the mob do that? Through political means. Watch how carefully any one of us can turn religion into politics, just by rephrasing the questions:
Why are we here, and what are we supposed to be doing now as a result of that?
Excuse me. Doesn't that presuppose that there is just one answer to the original question? Doesn't the OneSizeFitsAll nature of posing the question like that define statism/oppression? Isn't that exactly the kind of question that a free people should be wary of?
This is the basic global political struggle, the individual vs. the tribe. How much of your life belongs to the tribe/state, how much belongs to you? The American experiment is an attempt to codify an Individual Bill of Rights, a suggestion to the mob that the most fundamental right of each of us is to be free from the unfettered overwhelming force of all of us, and that is a concept worth mobbing up to defend. This interpretation of the American experiment is an impediment to the political goals of the herdists/statists among us, who would prefer to emphasize singular answers to the fundamental question of religion, and who require unfettered application of the overwhleming force of all of us against any of us in order to achieve that.
As you listen to modern American politics in 2008, listen closely to the tone of the debate, both from the GOP and the Democratic party, or as a wise man[1] refers to them collectively, "The National Party." See if you can detect anything but a 'free fall' to the concept that OneSizeFitsAll. There is no longer even lip service being paid to anything but.
Reguarda,
Frediano
[1] Nessus
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
