Is the Only Thing to Fear Is "Fear, Itself"?

One of America's Presidents encouraged our country at the beginning of the Great Depression with the statement; the "only thing to fear is fear itself". But, is the only thing to fear is" fear, itself"?I heard today that when one has "lost everything", then fear dissolves, because you have nothing to loose. The presumption was that one only fears the loss of the material. This is true for some, but it is too broad a generalization.

Fear can be ingrained in response to pain. One can fear the dentist or the doctor because of a painful experience or their high sensitivity to physical pain. Or one can fear the emotional pain of loving again after a painful loss. So, fear is a human response to stimuli, whether present situations or past experiences.

Fear can be bred, when one experiences the unexpected. Trust is the opposite of fear, in this regard. Rules of behavior, written or unwritten code of social "norms" are values that protect us from "fear of the unexpected". These "norms" are built on trust and are the basis of human relationships.

Today's "talk" posed courage as the opposite of fear. This is true, as courage is about fearlessness, but courage that is baseless irrationality, which disregards past experience, one's personal propensity to pain, whether physical or emotional, or the trustworthiness of one's present community, are all rational considerations in evaluating whether fear is justified. Fear is not necessarily bad. It is an emotional response to pain. It serves as a warning. So, should we always disregard such fear and act in the face of fear? Some would regard acting in the face of fear as courageous, while others would think it the height of presumption and foolishness!

Courage is built when fear is faced, acknowledged and addressed. Sometimes the fear is an entrance into "self-knowledge", while other times it is a call to courageous acts.

One cannot be too simple in understanding human emotion.

Painting Our Walls With Ungrounded "Hope"

These past two weeks, my son has been painting our walls. It is so refreshing to have nice clean freshly painted walls to begin spring. As I was thinking this morning about what it meant to me...these freshly painted walls, I started thinking about how we often paint over our own walls to the detriment of the "cracks". What do I mean?

Life has many "bumps" in the road and humans were meant for a certain environment. This enviornment gives the essentials of life, physically and psychologically. The family is the first and most important "group" the child will encounter. And that encounter has a lot to do with "cracks", but is not the lone reason.

Neuroscience is beginning to understand our brain and how the brain determines so much in the individual person. Psyhological science has various theories about personality, identity, personhood, etc. These sciences, as well as sociological science, define the development of the child, or person.

Humans all have "cracks" as we live in an imperfect world. These 'cracks" are what are met in religious identifications. They help us cope with life, when life seems to be incomprehensible. These "stories" grew up in the communitie's imagination to help the community to define itself within a larger context and to give meaning and value to life.

Religious experience is the emotional/psychological and physical response to stimuli that "fills in the cracks" with meaning. Religion gives a "reason" "why", so that those who suffer under their "cracked walls" can begin "anew".

But, what about "painting over the cracks"? Painting over cracks is what I would term "re-creating" the person, into a "spiritual image". This spiritual image is an image that is the "ideal", whereas he "real person", the "cracked person", is de-valued and dismissed. The problem with "covering over the cracks" is multi-faceted, as it affects everything from what you choose about life, the clothes you wear, to the way you bring your children up.

Religious identity can be damning and damaging to oneself and others. Why? because it never addresses the "real issues" but helps one to cope, cover over and deny "cracks". Cracks are part of being human and should not be denied, but embraced, as part of a person's "real history" and "real pain". These "cracks" cannot be healed without acknowledgement, confession, and understanding. And real change cannot be made if there is no accountability.

Religious cultures are breeding grounds for shame, which are unhealthy ways of social control. A human should never be subjected to humiliation, and shame because of some religious standard that denies the "cracks in humanity's face. Forgiveness is not "cheap grace", but a struggle to understand, deal with anger, admit the pain, and eventually decide response.

Many addiction counselors understand that humans use many substances to cover over pain. But, most people do not admit that religion is just as addictive, as any drug and it can be harder to alleviate because of a sense of "doing god's will" and "being righteous". This is an addiction of personality and it consumes the person under a subversive message of "self denial".

People that have "cracks "and can't admit it for fear of shame are those who live in self-denial through the messages they tell themselves, as well as the acts they perform. We should never "paint over our cracks", as it makes for terrible looking walls.

Legalizing Marijuana

Obama has stated that he will leave legalizing marajuina to the States. California is to bring up the issue before their State legislature and it is expected to pass.

Ethics, as well as science should be considered in this legislative decision. It is reported that marajuina is available to teens more readily than alcohol and cigarettes. The argument is that legislating a substance requires a more regimentation and structure which helps those who need it and limits abuse of minors.

Marajuina is regarded as a medicinal way to alleviate pain for those with painful illness, such as cancer, AIDS, and even for manic depressive disorder. Many think that this is a compassionate way to help, not only with pain but supposedly with appetite. Appetite loss results from certain drugs, not to mention the damage to organs that further complicates the initial illness.

California is not just looking at legislating marajuina because of compassion but because of the monies that can come into state coffers through taxes. It is known that pharmacetical companies have strong influence in our Congress, so possibley passing the buck to the States is a political means to stay "clean" on the issue, while helping States cover their deficits.

On the other hand, the argument against legalizing marajuina is substance abuse. Those who are buying the drug on the black market not only are furthering the drug trafficing along our borders that increase the dangers of gangs and crime "warlords", but it also exposes these people to possible tainted substances that could have damaging reprecussions. So, do we take the chance on addictions escalation through legalization, or do we further the crimes at our borders with drug smuggling? It is not an easy choice. It will be an interesting development to watch.