WAR Between the Classes Is More Than Economic

In Novemeber, there was an article in Time that intrigued me. The article suggested that there had been and now is a wide gap between what Time called "the military class" and "the Political Elite". And this is what got me thinking today, as I was thinking about class warfare and its usefulness for political manipulation.

The Times article suggested that the military class was becoming ingrown, as more and more children of military families volunteer for military service. These understand military culture, which values duty, honor and country. And such an ingrown culture is not unlike that of elite academia, which until recently didn't allow ROTC into their university environments. Such a condition can't help but alienate "the Academy" from "the military class" and it widens the gap of understanding between the military and those that work in other areas of government. When such alienation happens, it is no wonder that each talks "past each other", because they have different goals and foci.

While the military has been gathering a more ingrown culture, the political class has forgotten the military's major reason for existing and their duty to protect the citizenry against foreign powers under the protections of a Constitutional government. The "academic elite" are those that usually get into political office these days. Those that serve as "Commander in Chief" aren't required to serve in the military, and as a result, humanitarian emphasis has become as important as our nation's political interests. Humanitarian interests sometimes conflicts with the public interests and the public trust of the elected official and national security issues. Should the elected official do his duty of serving his country as elected or seek to implement a change that is not limited or accountable to the people or other branches of government?

Yesterday the Washington Post had an article about the rising costs of campaigning and how limited the average person is in running for office and having an ability to win. Today, the wealth accumulated by our elected officials has furthered the gap between the citizen and the political class.

Such gaps of wealth accumulation further propitiate a "ruling class" where their personal business interests become a consideration when overseeing public affairs/policy deicisions. Where is the ethics of a Congress that can grant exceptions and exemptions to their political allies? Croynism becomes the culture of corruption and leaves the little guy wondering what is happening to his own material security.

Our society if fraught today with many Wars. The culture war between faith and the political; the class warfare between the rich and the poor; the political class and the military; and the ruling class and the peasant. Is it any wonder why the French revolted when their country used public trust and public funds to help other countries, while their own society disintergrated into desolation? Is it any wonder that those that play on political chaos for ther own political gain have the makings of dictators that have no sense of boundary regarding their office? Is it any wonder that the Tea Party and the Occupiers have expressed various concerns, and why the political class isn't interested because they don't really have to be? They are unaccountable and well equipped to take care of themselves without considering what their own self interest costs the nation. Whenever government and its officials become a "law unto themselves", then the rest of us had better be prepared for some rough waters ahead.

If One Wants to Believe...

IF one wants to believe in the transcendent or a transcendental realm, then, we must agree with the Jews or the Buddhist. It is beyond our ability to understand, so we must not impose it upon others.

One practices their "faith" in humanitarian endeavors, the other practices "self-discipline" as to consciousness. Neither co-cerces others to agree with them. Each have affirmative aspects to America's diversity in unity or unity in diversity....

Rumminating.....

This morning I have been thinking along several different lines, and I hope, as I write this, that it will come together in some coherent whole.

The first thought on my mind this morning was how blessed I am. I was and am thankful.

The second thought came this morning after reading about Gaza, an editorial and a letter to the editor in our morning paper. It seems that agreement will be made between Egypt, France and the U.S. as to border control, to disrupt the smuggling of arms to Hamas. The editorial was commending a letter that was written to the editor. In this letter and the editorial it was contrasting the priorities of meeting a child's request for "a blanket" and some other necessary essentials. But, it suggested that Americans have skewed priorities, as we spend so much on our national security, in light of this child's request. I find it such short-sightedness that one can suggest that the child's need will even be met without freedom. Freedom is of necessity in having a choice, which is mandantory in meeting any request or other need! I am sure the writer and editorial meant well, as this was a valid need and concern for the "little amongst us", but I find it simplistic and simple minded to think that a child's need comes before a properly ordered government!!! This is why much humanitarian aid does not get distributed, so I think it is an absurdity to say that Americans should dissolve their miltary and use the money for humanitarian aid!!!

So, if I had the choice, I would work on/in government, rather than in humanitarian aid!

A Question of Faith

We are in D.C. again with students. I love to see the students experience "new things", as I enjoy seeing others learn, as well as learning myself.

In light of my love for learning, yesterday we went to the L.Ron Hubbard house to take a tour. For those that don't know who he is, he was the founder of "Scientology", a mind/thought/spirit cult. My husband and I were the only ones there to take the tour and the tour guide was a young man who had grown up in the cult. Before reading more about "Scientology" after getting back to our room, I was intrigued with his presentation. But, honesty is not the best policy when coming to marketing a cult, nor is it "important" when others seek to subvert "righteousness". Real motivations take time to evaluate.

Scientologists believe that one can "control persons, environments, and organizations". When I inquired about this quote of Hubbard's, as it concerned me. Our tour guide explained that "controlling others was not really about coercion, as giving them what they want'. It is, in other words, manipulation, marketing, and dominating another for the purposes of one's own agenda. After, reading more on the internet about many nations wanting to outlaw this cult, I became convinced that the "jargon" that was given to us in the tour was only a means of luring someone into a "cultish mentality". But, their marketing scheme is under the name of "rationality". There were many "truths", which do "work", but at what costs?

Scientology has infilterated business training, education, and healthcare to mention only a few. They have a hierarchal "scheme" of promotion in the "processing' (trainee) and informing (auditor). One is trained to "become" under the influence of another's "expertise" and advice. I find that this can be similar to some "discipleship" programs within the Christian faith. It is the "theology of glory" that Luther spoke out against. And it is really warmed over gnosticism, at least that is what it seems to me. I found it espcially interesting that the guide promoted Hubbard as a humanitarian, who was concerned about human rights, while he promoted groupism and a group think.

When we were about to leave, I saw another quote about trust, which I found interesting and questioned our guide about "naive trust" in a world that does not speak that language. Trust is something that should be earned, as others should respect proper boundaries around the "other", whether nation or person.

Dianetics is the "program" and it sounds so "promising", but practically, it is a dangerous brain-washing, which promises success, health, and "wisdom". These promises appeal to all men, who desire "power", but this kind of power does abuse the "law", whether the law of Christ, or the law of Moses, or the law of boundary maintenence.

Atheist, Agnostic or What?

Yesterday, I listened to Dr. Bart Ehrman, professor of religion at UNC/Chapel Hill, speak on suffering. He had been an evangelical at one time, but is now agnostic. His views were interesting and freeing.

In June, when I started this blog, I had suggested that those who base their authority mainly on reason, but have not denied tradition are agnostics. Otherwise, reason alone will lead to atheism, as it rejects religion's role in human life. I believe this describes Dr. Ehrman. The atheist's agenda is to undermine any value in religion and undo all religious conviction and commitment. Even though Dr. Ehrman does not believe that religion's purpose serves as the only moral compass for man, he does say that the "new atheists" do not seem to have understanding of religion's "good".

Just recently, I read the summarization of a book "Border Lines" (Quadralateral Thoughts' side-bar recommended books). This author's theory is Jewish montheism leaves room for the development of Christian expression, as one of many expressions of faith.

I find this is an interesting concept, as I do believe that this is how man is made. Difference and uniqueness imprint us from our DNA to our fingerprints. This fact alone should underwrite the need for diversity of understanding and functioning of one's faith. Faith should wear no labels, really.

I think that if "Border Lines' is correct in its analysis, then, it also would underwrtie scholarship's understanding of religion and the different ways of understanding in the history of traditions, philosophy of religions, and the psychology of religion. These divisions represent different approaches from experience, tradition, and reason. I find that fascinating and liberating!

So, what would be the "correct" term for one that bases their faith on reason (philosophy of religion), agnostic mysticism; one who bases their understanding on experience (psychology of religion), an existentialist humanitarian; one who bases their understanding on tradition (history of religion), a social/political/cultural reformer....I know I am indentified with agnostic mysticism, but am grappling with the implications of the others...

Each one defines their faith on faith (agnostic mysticism), hope (existential humanitarian), and love (reformer)....and all are connected to the "real world" of the here and now....and is not defined by creed (religion's d0gmatics), or religion (labels of definitions based on dogmatics). it is an undefined faith in life itself, not a system, a culture, or group identity.