Feeds:
Posts
Comments

I see in the news that the Trump administration’s Health and Human Services is about to promote the pro-life belief that life begins at conception.  However, I cannot help but wonder if they have thought this out all the way.  I mean, if they had, they would realize that “life begins at conception” is way too liberal. Science, after all, tells us that both sperm and eggs are alive too.  And the Bible tells us that God knew us before we had even formed in the womb. In other words, life instead of starting at conception, is started before conception.

I have heard many religious groups, the same ones who Trump wants to allow full reign on imposing their morals on the country, citing Jeremiah 1:5 for their pro-life beliefs.

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

Now, it seems to me that if you are going to use this verse as a Biblical justification for being against abortion then you are also going to have to go much further than merely picketing abortion clinics and passing laws against abortion.  Much, much further. After all, before being “formed in the womb” you were an egg and a sperm.

If you are for life and take this verse seriously as a justification for being against abortion then you must also start a campaign to save the sperm and eggs that are being murdered in their millions every day.

After all, since God knew Jeremiah before he was formed in the womb then that means he knew and had selected which sperm was going to unite with which egg to form Jeremiah.  If this verse then is the basis for being against abortion it is only logical to then be against losing sperm and eggs.  After all who knows what God has planned for each individual sperm and egg that was lost.  A man irresponsibly spilling his seed or a woman who menstruates recklessly need to be stopped and stopped now.

images

Obviously this is going to change things quite a bit.  For one thing the Catholic Church is far too weak and wishy-washy in their stance against birth control.  Not only should embryos and fetuses be saved but sperm and eggs need to be saved too.  It is, after all, Biblical – from God to us.

Now, in order to save the sperm and eggs the following, as I see it, will have to be done:

1)     All males past the age of puberty would have to wear sperm catchers while they sleep lest they have a nocturnal emission.  Should they have one it will have to be immediately put in the refrigerator until it can be safely and quickly transported to an appropriate Sperm Collection Hospital.

2)    Males with hair triggers will be required to always wear a sperm catcher.

3)    Immediately after intercourse the insides of a woman’s vagina and uterus would have to be swabbed and any excess sperm saved.  Again this would have to be put in the refrigerator until transport to the Sperm Collection Hospital.

4)    If the couple engages in either oral or anal sex the man would again have to wear the sperm collector just as he does during sleep.  Those men with hair triggers who would be required to always have wear sperm collectors would have an advantage in that no annoying interruptions would occur during sex play.

5)    Women would have to wear egg catchers during their menstrual period to collect the eggs that would otherwise be lost.  Like the males these would have to be refrigerated and then safely and quickly transported to an Egg Collection Hospital.

6)    Probably both the Sperm Collection Hospital and the Egg Collection Hospital should be physically connected in some manner since eventually both egg and sperm would have to be united to form a new baby.

7)    Women would also have to wear egg catchers when they urinate – especially after having engaged in intercourse.  Scientists have been finding that there are many fertilized eggs that do not implant and are lost when peeing.  After being caught the same procedures are followed in regards to storage and transport.

8)    Of course laws would have to be passed to ensure that men and women followed these common sense Ultra Pro Life practices.

9)    Since we are talking about human lives here and a Biblical directive, a well funded crash research and development program needs to be initiated to resolve some rather pressing problems and issues.

  1. Since there are roughly 6 to 10 million sperm produced during each ejaculation and each woman only produces about 400 eggs during her lifetime it is obvious that there is going to be much more sperm than there are eggs.  Because of this we are going to have to develop an artificial egg in order not to let any sperm go to waste and thus spoil God’s plan.
  2. Since the number of sperm vastly outnumbers the number of eggs it is obvious that sperm will be driving how many babies will be born.  And of course how many women will be needed to incubate the united sperm and egg.
  3. In doing a bit of research I find that men between the ages of 20 to 29 ejaculate on average 15 times a month.  That number (sadly) declines by age 80 to an average of 5 ejaculations a month.
  4. According to the 2007 census there are over 19 million men in the United States falling into the 20 to 29 age range.  At 15 ejaculations per month that means there are 285 billion ejaculations per month.  Over a 10 month period (have to allow a woman at least one month recovery between pregnancies) we will need 2,850,000,000,000 women to host all of that sperm.  And that is just sperm from the 20 to 29 age range.  The number obviously becomes much higher when you factor in all of the post puberty males; both those younger than 20 and older than 29.
  5. There are only 143.5 million women in the United States of all ages from 0 to death.    Obviously we have a problem with not enough women for all of this sperm.
  6. I believe that in order to correct this several actions will have to be taken:
    1. We need to find a way to shorten the gestation period from 9 months to 4 months.  This will allow for a quicker turnaround of pregnancies.
    2. We need to find a way to allow pre-pubescent girls to become pregnant too.  And of course we would need to have all women, regardless of how old they are – including post menopausal women – being sperm hosts.
    3. We will have to freely allow immigration of single or separated women from other countries.
    4. We should immediately start research on how to create an artificial woman who can host sperm and produce babies.  Preferably of the Stepford type – the wives that is.

Now I know that some unthinking person is going to ask why not just make all males past the age of puberty take some sort of medication to prevent erections and in that manner control the killing of sperm.  That way we can limit the living sperm to the numbers of available women.  I am sure that some especially vindictive and short sighted women who hate God might even suggest electro-shock aversion treatment instead of chemicals as a way to prevent erections.

However this would be wrong.

For just as the Bible tells us to save the sperm and eggs so too does it tell us to go forth and multiply.  And since God gave us all it is up to us to give God all we can to fulfill his commandments… no matter how difficult it seems.

So this suggestion is a no go.  And that’s not even considering the other bits in the Bible about woman being the helper of the man and having to bear the pain of childbirth.

Now I know that this may seem radical to some, but is it really?  After all we are talking about human life here.  It doesn’t matter that they, the sperm and the egg, are small and do not look like us.  Life is life and God knows it all.

God said so when he spoke to Jeremiah.

 

 

Note: This is a revision and update of a blog I originally posted on October 4, 2011.

 

Advertisements

Why is Religion a Right?

As usual, Trump and his administration are in the news. For many things. The two that caught my eye for this blog are:

  • Trump putting into place a rule allowing more employers to opt out of buying insurance that provides coverage for birth control if they have religious objections to it.
  • The DOJ memorandum excluding transgendered people from legal protections, along with two follow on memos outlining the new view on religious liberty and federal law, views that will likely have a large and negative impact on LGBT rights. .

And let me add one more story relevant to this blog.  This one from Kansas, where the state has taken a child from his mother and grandparents and , over their religious based objections based,  the state is going to vaccinate him.

Now, I am not going to go into who is right and wrong here – although those who know413b4ee6dceb3098d9b515c6f3e6b5f2 me probably can take a good guess at what my views are.  Instead, I am going to briefly discuss why freedom of religion is on a par with the right of free speech, a free press, freedom of assembly and so forth.

First let me provide the list the rights from the Constitution’s Bill of Rights (note – many of our founders would object to my use of the word “list”. For the reason why, consider the 9th Amendment.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Now, almost all of the rights listed here have rather a rather obvious relationship to a working government, especially a democracy.  Free speech, trial by jury, freedom of assembly, and so forth.  But freedom of religion?  How is that related to a functioning government?

To answer this, first, consider the freedom of religion might more properly be called the freedom of conscience, the right for a person to believe as they chose.  In many ways that is a more basic right than freedom of speech and such, since if you are not free to believe as you see fit then what does it matter if your speech is free?  Of course, you could argue then that political thoughts and ideas are free and protected, but not religious ones, not ones dealing with God and the afterlife and the moral teachings of a religion.  The problem with this is that so often, in fact most often, a person’s ideas and thoughts about politics are going to be influenced by his thoughts about morality at the very least. And for most, morality was associated with religion.  In other words, making a clear distinction is much more easily said than done.

Which leads us into the second reason. Religion is important to people. Their views of the universe, of life and what may lie beyond it, about how to live in this world, and all the rest of it are of critical importance to individuals and groups.  In fact, people consider these views so important that religion has had a prominent role to play in most of the violence in the world (note, I did not say cause, there is a difference).   This is something I wrote about in my blog What Most Have Forgotten.

The point here is that our founders, the creators of the Constitution, knew this history just as well as anyone did. Better than most actually. Along with this is the fact that most Religion-2of them believed religion to be of critical importance to a society too.  The best way they saw to avoid the violence was to give everyone the right to believe as they think best, without the government taking a side or promoting one view over another.  In other words, to have a free and functioning democracy, freedom of religion is just as essential as any and all the other rights.

 

As for the proof of it- well, our history has been free of the degree of religious conflict that afflicted both Europe and Colonial America. And that still afflicts much of the world.  It is also an idea that has been taken up by many nations around the world, to their betterment.  The challenge now that we have successfully created the separation of church and state so necessary for a stable democratic government is to maintain that separation in the face of those who  do not realize its importance.  One of the many challenges facing us in our suddenly changed times.

208-main-epi-illo-630x356

What does the word father mean?  According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary (slightly paraphrased), a father is:

  • A man who has begotten a child.
  • God, the first person of the Trinity
  • Forefather, such as the founding fathers of the United States.
  • One related to another in a way suggesting that of father to child.
  • An old man – used as a respectful form of address
  • A pre-Scholastic, a Christian writer accepted by the church as an authoritative witness to its teaching and practice – called also church father
  • One that originates or institutes, such as the father of modern science.
  • Source, such as the sun, the father of warmth and light.
  • Prototype, such as the father of all libraries in the country,.
  • A priest of the regular clergy.
  • One of the leading men (as of a city) – usually used in plurals such as a council of the city fathers.

Wow, so many meanings embedded within one word.

words-at-work

Now, those wedded to the idea a person can read the words of a tract, book, articles, manuscript, religious work or political document and understand exactly what it means, will, upon seeing where I am heading with this, point out that while the word father does have many different meanings, which meaning being used is usually made obvious by the context of the word.  In other words, the words around the word help define that word.  And to an extent they are right.

However, words are not only understood as an abstract intellectual concept. In fact, most of the time they are not. People insert meaning  and values to those words.

For example, what a father is will be something quite different  for a woman who was raped and abused by her father since she was a young child versus what it will mean for a young man who had a loving father who played games and helped with homework.  Which means that how a person understands a word within a given sentence embedded within a paragraph that is part of a page which is just one page in an article or a book and all of whose words influence the meaning and understanding of that particular word is going to also depend on that individual’s own feelings and emotions in reaction to that  particular word.  And let us not forget, that each and every one of those words influencing the understanding of the word in question is also being interpreted and understood by that person’s past too.

Put that way, it is really rather amazing that we communicate as well as we do.

And all of this Is happening before we start applying that rather abstract understanding of a word in a passage in a paragraph, etc to real world questions and problems.  Thou 24stephensWEB-facebookJumboshalt not kill seems simple enough commandment when seen on a page, but what does it mean when faced with a 220 pound six foot man with blood in his eye as well as on his clothes wielding a machete?   What about a person running away from you with your money and jewels when you have a gun in your hand?  What about if you accidently kill someone by stumbling over your untied shoelace, bumping into that person and causing her to take a header down an up escalator?  Is that still a sin?  Or even a crime?

To avoid spending too much time and way too many thousands of words, let me just condense it to this: how we understand words, especially words that are accompanied by a great many words, and even more so when those crowds of words have to be applied to the world, are only partly objective. They also have a large subjective element to it, a subjectivity that is dependent upon a person’s:

  • Parents
  • Personal history
  • Education
  • Culture
  • Society
  • Political economic status
  • Own readings
  • Friends
  • Acquaintances, both of the friendly and not so friendly sort.
  • Movies
  • Music (one person I know was greatly affected by John Denver’s songs, another by Pink Floyd’s)
  • And anything else

So, to cut to the chase since I am now  trying to keep these blogs at 1000 words or less, what does this mean in regards to a definition of religion?  Which is, after all, the title of this blog.

A religion can be and usually is defined by its sacred works and doctrine. However, this never quite seems to nail it down. Take a look and you will find a great deal of variety within even a small seemingly well defined group of believers.  Even the most uniform of them will disagree on some issues. And some will prove to be more amenable to different understandings than others.   Which is strong evidence against the idea that there is some plain and literal reading to be had, and for my own view is that, while there are objective limits, they bracket a wide range of subjective understandings and interpretations.

For myself, I have read many works taken to be sacred by different religions – the Tanakh, Bible, Quran, Bhagavad Gita, Tao Te Ching.  In every  one of the works I have read I found things I considered good and things I considered bad. Some of these were very very good, and some were very very bad.  How these often conflicting passages are understood and applied to the world is very dependent upon how a person choses to understand them.

6259220Given this, I think the most practical and relevant definition of a religion is that a religion is what its followers make of it – both as a group and as individuals within that group.

 

I believe that the most practical definition of religion is a religion is what its followers make of it. What they make of it is, of course, influenced by the history of that group, their society, other aspects of their cultures, geography, political and economic realities, and so forth.  To get even more basic, religion usually differs even between members of the same group, so that more properly a religion can be said to be what a follower makes of it.

For example, Rais Bhuiyan, the lone survivor of an attack by a man intent on getting revenge for 9/11, suing to prevent the killer’s execution because he believed the Qur’an required him to forgive.

Harman Singh, a Sikhs required by his religion to not take his turban off, taking it off and using it to help a young boy hurt in an accident.

And the list goes ever on and covers every variety of religion, and non-religion – Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Wiccan….

For me, I believe that often the most important definition of a religion is what does that person or group make of their religion. It is why, although very important, a particular religions sacred scriptures and doctrine are, to my mind, of secondary importance.

 

 

 

Well dang. 1,174 words.

 

index

I came across a post in Facebook the other day about the possibility of requiring car manufacturers to install some mechanism to keep children from being left in cars on hot days and dying. Instead of the praise I expected to see, the comments were dissing this – asking what about personal responsibility.

Okay. So I just saw on CNN a lawyer advocating to make it MANDATORY for car manufacturers to put a device in the car that reminds parents that they have children with them – so they won’t be left to die in a hot car.

Really?car seat

Is this what it has come down to? Passing the buck to the auto industry for parents to be responsible for their own children? I mean, am I missing something? Should I be more sympathetic to parents who “forget” about their children? Please tell me if I am missing something, because, I just don’t get it.

 

I don’t get it either….what on a person’s mind could be more important than taking their child out when they get out?

 

I hear they’re working on a device that reminds you when to poop! After all these years without it I know my life will change!

 

In reading these comments, it occurred to me how much suffering still exists in the name of “personal responsibility”.

Yes, I am like these commenters in that I find it hard to imagine forgetting your child   However, guess what? The unimaginable happens. So, are you going to let children continue to die or take actions to prevent it? As for personal responsibility – parents have thousands of decisions they make every day.  I do not think that something that aides parents in remembering their child is in the car seat is going to wind up taking all the responsibilities away from being a parent.  I imagine there are one or two other things that occur occasionally that a parent winds up being responsible for.  And even if it did take away all other responsibilities, keeping that personal responsibility would still come at too high a cost – a child’s life.

This same argument, that of what about individual responsibility,  is used in so many other areas of our life.  For example, a prominent one today is in regards to universal healthcare.

Shouldn’t people be responsible for getting their own healthcare? What ever happened to the idea of personal responsibility?

To put this in the proper perspective then, you who argue against universal healthcare on the basis of personal responsibility are OK with poor people or those who are just getting by going without healthcare, being sick and suffering, and dying sooner than those with healthcare; OK with children doing without needed medical care with the healthcareresult that they have both their physical and mental development harmed, and too often dying when they could have lived and thrived; OK with pregnant women not getting the needed prenatal and postnatal care with the result that we have the highest maternal death rate in the developed world, and, unlike every other developed nation, one that is rising; Ok with having an infant mortality rate that is worse than 27 other developed countries (about on a par with Serbia or Malaysia); OK with people going bankrupt trying to pay their or their loved ones medical bills.

You are OK with all of that and more, all in the name of personal responsibility?

Oh yes, it is indeed a carefree life under universal healthcare with no personal responsibilities or decisions to make.  Well, other than decisions on what to eat and how much to eat, how best to exercise or even to exercise, to smoke or not to smoke, when to go to the doctor and when not to, which doctor to go to, do you want to follow what they tell you or not, do you take all of your medicine, or do you go for alternative medicines, and the list goes on and on.  And, of course, that covers only decisions on health issues.

I don’t know, but it  seems to me that there is plenty of personal responsibility left. The only thing being taken away is the stress and worries caused by not being able to afford and get healthcare. And the pain and suffering and deaths of millions of men, women, and children.  And like saving the lives of children in car seats, I think this a good, a moral thing.

Too often the cry of personal responsibility is nothing more than an excuse to justify not taking personal responsibility for the good of our country, our society,  our neighbors, and, ultimately, our own enlightened self interests.

 

Before getting to the questions, let me first off make this clear.  These questions are directed at the vision of the afterlife held by those Christians who believe in a “literal” interpretation and understanding of the Bible, in a very real heaven and a very real hell, and in angels, Lucifer, and fallen angels.

images

Second off, while written mainly in response to the above mentioned  Christians’ views about the afterlife, they also have, surprisingly, a great deal of relevance for almost any idea and conception of a life after death.

Now, having gotten the offs out of the way, on to the setting up questions.

333px-Pieter_Bruegel_the_Elder_-_The_Fall_of_the_Rebel_Angels_-_Google_Art_ProjectGod created Adam and Eve.  God created Angels. He created both toGen_03-24_Gjertson be his eternal companions.  Yet both failed him in that.  Some angels rebelled against God. Adam and Eve disobeyed God.

Given that so far God has a 100% failure rate in creating beings to share eternity with him, then why should the afterlife be any different?  What is the difference this time from the last two times?

Is free will the issue?  Then is God going to take away humanity’s free will?  If so, then why not do so at the beginning and avoid all the pain and suffering of humanity while on earth/. And the pain and suffering that most of humanity will be in for eternity after they die? If free will was important enough to justify that much pain, then wouldn’t taking it away mean that we become something other than human, something less?

If free will is not the answer then perhaps  it is because we are going to be purified by our life here on earth  and our dross will burn away with our deaths?   In which case, what are our impurities?  What is our dross? Often our strengths in some areas also creates weaknesses in other areas, our weaknesses in one area are a strength in another – different sides of the same coin so to speak.  What then?  Burn the coin?

In addition, we are the sum of our weaknesses and strengths.  Change them and you change who we are.  To an extent you could mess with that, but at some point in doing so that person who is experiencing heaven is not the same person who experienced life in the here and now.

Also, humans form groups.  More accurately, we are individuals who form groups.  Being individuals we form stronger groups with those who are most like us in some way.   And being individuals we are going to have disagreements with other individuals  Which means the groups are going to have disagreements.  What is to keep them from becoming violent and creating conflict and pain as they so often do now?

Perhaps  we are purified so that these differences will never get out of hand?  I am not sure how that would work.  Put a banana in a bowl of water and nothing much happens. However, take the potassium out of the banana and purify it and then drop it in the water and you get this:

Potassium water.gif

Perhaps we should  be adding more dross?  Perhaps it is the dross that defines us?

Or perhaps no borders and limitless land and is the secret?  Along with limitless food and drink, and a body that does not get hurt or know pain?  All of which would reduce or eliminate the most common sources of conflict. But not all.  After all, both Adam and Eve had that, as did the Angels. And it did not work then. So, why now?

It seems that God made both angels and humanity with the same design flaw.  In fact, I You_are_God's_mistake_think that this “flaw” would also make heaven, a paradise in a forever life after death, impossible for humanity, whether it is a God driven one or a secular one.   Humans are too diverse a group for that.

 

Somehow, I think the only way an eternity of bliss would work is if the species inhabiting it were not human.  Between our needs as individuals and our needs as part of a group, I am very much afraid that humans are not meant for an eternity of bliss and happiness.

The Quantum Fuzziness of Words

One of my pet peeves are people who believe in the literal meaning of almost anything. The argument is that people know what the words mean so there is no excuse for not understanding the clear and obvious meaning of whatever. Where I live the Bible and the Constitution are the most common items where this belief holds sway.  But it can hold true on other topics and areas too.

Just recently, a person used this argument on me in regards to the U S. Constitution. What follows is what I said to this person, in a slightly more organized and cleaned up (grammar and spelling, not what you are thinking) version of that response.

 

DictionaryYes, words do have meanings. However, when those words are applied to specific situations, fuzziness results. For those interested in science, consider it sort of a reverse quantum effect where instead of becoming more defined when measured or looked at, as happens with atomic particles, words become less defined and more fuzzy.

To illustrate this, let’s take a non-political, non-religious, and, hopefully, non-controversial example – colors. Haven’t most of us at some point disagreed with someone on the color of some object?  Is that dress red or pink, or is that car black or grey or Color testspossibly dark green. Some of you may have, at one time or another, looked at one of those  color perception tests where they lay out a large array of color circles– say blue on one end and green on the other with small differences going on in between. At what point do you say this circle is blue green, or that one green?  Yes, people can agree on the definitions of words, on the definitions of colors, but once you start applying that definition to what people are looking at, disagreements come about.

And that is the crux of the issue. Yes, people understand the dictionary definitions of words. But, in applying those definitions to the world and that understanding fuzzes.

It gets worse.

Words make sentences. Sentences make paragraphs. And paragraphs make pages.  Each rise in the number and ordering of words also increases the complexity of the meaning of those individual words since each word is modified and changed by the other words around it.   Because of this, when these masses of words are applied to the real world, greater fuzziness results.

Now, when talking about the Constitution, people who make this literalist sort of argument often also say that the reason people do not read the words as written is due to an agenda or politics or being lazy and not wanting to go through the process that the founders of this country created to change the Constitution.

However, these people never seem to consider the fact that the actual men who wrote Constitution-1250x650the Constitution disagreed, often strongly disagreed, on what those words meant and how they should be applied to real world situations.  One of many examples of this was the creation of a national bank.  Alexander Hamilton believed it to be Constitutional.  James Madison believed it to be unconstitutional.  Yet both men were there and helped in creating the Constitution. This fact alone should be strong evidence that it is not just a matter of reading the words and following them.

For another example, read a good biography of George Washington, especially his years as our first President.  He frequently worried and discussed what this or that passage of the Constitution meant and how it should be applied with his staff and advisors.  Although composed of well defined words, their meaning was not clear and simple to him. And he was the President of the Constitutional Convention.  Again, strong evidence that it is not just a simple matter of reading the words.  Words become fuzzy when applied to everyday life and reality.

This means that a person’s views of the world – of law, of the issues, etc. – are going to play a role in his understanding of what the Constitution means and says in regards to this application of its words or that application of its words.  There is no way it cannot.  But, and this is also important to understand, this does not mean that anything goes.  Fuzzy is not the same as having no shape or form.  A fuzzy boundary is not the same as no boundary.  Fuzzy means that the edges of meanings of the words are not clear and sharp and distinct, but are, instead, vague and blurred. This becomes even more true when they interact with the fuzzy meanings of other words.  In other words,  there is a great deal of room for honest disagreement and dispute.

As a final example of this fuzziness, let me use this a bit of this person’s own words in his comment to me; “we the people”.

This is a phrase used many times by people all along the political and social spectrum.  And each word of this phrase is easy to understand. And even the whole when looked at abstractly can be reasonably understood. But then try applying it to the real world, as I did with this person.

“What does that mean?  Do you include those who believe and think like me?  Or just those who think like you?  Do you mean everyone, rich and poor, educated and non-educated, communist, KKK member, John Birch Society, farmer, scientist, Muslim, Christian, Atheist, and Jew?  Or is its meaning more restrictive?”

Puzzled

 

I am sorry sir, but your meaning is not clear.

 

I have been told I do nothing. That while on Facebook I talk about changes and issues facing our nation, that all I do about them is blog. I write the write but don’t do the walk. Usually this is when someone is in heated disagreement with me on an issue and are looking for a way to put me down, and minimize what I do.  Which, along with my experiences during Hurricane Harvey, got me thinking, and so this blog.

For myself, my critic is partially right. I don’t do any big earth shaking , country roiling , state rattling deeds. My words and actions are not going to inspire any great movements, or even any memories that will outlast me by much.  Which makes me just like most people.

However, that does not mean that what we do does not make a difference, or that the difference we make is unimportant.  In fact, one way of viewing this makes what we are doing the most important thing possible.

I know that when I view the actions and policies and statements of those who can influence and change the state, the country, the world, the bottom line of my evaluation is how will it affect people. Not people as a massive group, not people as an idea, but people as individuals. As persons.

And it is at that level that everyday people can and do make a difference.

Just a reminder 5

Stopping to help a person with a flat. Seeing a person struggling with a load and offering to help carry some of it. Pausing to let another driver in during heavy traffic.

Small things, everyday things, but they make a difference to that person at that time. They set a tone for our neighborhood, our town and help create our society.  Some examples that I personally know about during our time in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey.

A neighbor with a well has run a hose from her house for everyone to use since our city water is currently contaminated.

When out scouting for food and water, and too often standing in long lines, people share information and suggestions. There is water to be found there, that street is flooded, avoid it, this store is open until then, that one is not, etc.

People using grocery carts to take their water and food to their car returning that cart to those waiting in line instead of putting them in the parking lot cart corrals since there are no carts at the doors.

A co-worker with a swimming pool letting people know if they need water they can come get some from his pool – this was when we had no water, contaminated or clean.

On the neighborhood website, people in our addition offering help- from going to help clear the fallen tree, to passing on info about where to get water. One guy’s house flooded and another neighbor went right over with heavy duty vacuums to help clean the mess.

One woman got caught away from home when her street flooded and she couldn’t get back in. There was a litter of puppies trapped in her yard.Another woman managed to get through the water to the pups and rescue them.

And of course, this does not include the many people with boats and jet skis who rescued people from flooded homes.

Small things really, overall. Things that will be not only be soon forgotten, but are often not even covered to begin with. But, they helped someone, and made a difference for individual people.  Such actions not only create the bonds of a society, bonds which are essential for the survival of any society,  but are also the result of those bonds.

And this happens everyday everywhere in the US (and the world). It is not limited to times of disaster. Other examples from my life, my wife’s life, and from friends.

Having a stranger stop to help fix a flat on a rental car during a wet night in the middle of nowhere.

Providing a place to stay not just once, but twice to those displaced by tragedy .this-beautiful-random-act-of-kindness-was-photographed-give-this-awesome-guy-a-like-for-caring

Providing first aid to those injured by a tornado that was still there.

When seeing a man who had enough money for a gallon of gas but not enough to pay for the gas can the gas station insisted he had to buy instead of borrow – buying the gas can and the gas.

Paying the difference for a person in the grocery costs at the store when they were short of money.

Helping a neighbor look for a lost pet.

Along with other drivers who stopped, pulling a young man out of a car that had flipped just before it caught on fire.

And the list goes on. Nothing that by itself will change a nation. But done by the tens and hundreds of millions each day, they help cement the bonds of society. In all of the above, there was no concern about the person’s race, religion, gender, employment, or politics. Just a person in need.  And a person willing to help.

So, while it is well worth the time and effort to try to influence the ones who can shape and shift the country, to join together with other like thinking people to advocate and to press for needed changes, you and I can still make a difference on that most fundamental level, the person.

And as for my blog.  Well, even if I can just influence a couple of people with one or two of my blogs, cause a couple of people to think, or maybe even act, that would be enough. Especially since from small beginnings such as this, things can grow and grow large enough to make the bigger differences that so impresses people. But, probably not. And if it does wind up making a larger difference through a chain of hundreds of people, I will probably never know. And that’s OK.   I am fine with the small.

So, no, no earth shaking differences. Just small ones. And usually not original either. In Just a Reminder 2fact, the ideas embedded within my words here are not new, and have been expressed many millions of times by others.  But, then, perhaps they need to be. Just as a reminder.