Issue 238 Voluntary Redistribution December 30,2013

What does it mean to redistribute the wealth? When is it theft and when is it voluntary? I attempt to answer these questions here and now.

Redistribution: To redistribute wealth means to literally have one person take there own wealth and give a portion of it to someone else. In to day’s society, this is typically done by wealthy individuals who are giving to the poor, or when the government takes money from people with money and gives them to the less fortunate. It can be forced or compelled. Even the poor themselves can have money taken from them and given to others as well. Redistributing wealth is just this, taking money or property from one individual and giving it to another.

When it is theft: This redistribution can be a form of theft. If a person or a government forcibly takes money and property away from the individual against the will of the owner, then it is theft of the highest order. A government has no right to a person’s individual wealth, nor does it have the right to take that wealth and give it to whoever they wish (an estimated 70% of welfare helps the rich rather than helping the poor in the U.S.). Governments play the role of a thief on a daily basis even when it is against the law for private individuals to take from one another. The Founding Fathers of the United States warned against an income tax because of the government’s thievery they experienced back in Europe and when the U.S. was still a bunch of colonies (also they felt the government would go broke just trying to enforce an income tax). What ever the reason for the government taking our money and giving it to others, if it is against our will then it will always be theft.

When it is voluntary: It is voluntary when people give money freely to those they feel who need it. We all call this charity. Rather than some government or organization deciding where our money should go, we can choose who gets what. Charity is all about the giving freely of your own wealth. You yourself are redistributing it to those you believe can do the most good with it. Whether it is a charity, a hospital or similar organization or an individual, when it is done by you it is voluntary. As the biggest advantage of this is that you can see where your money is going and maybe even see its effects on that individual. You also can see if the aid you give is actually helping. This allows you to adjust the type of aid you’re giving or to cut it back if the person begins to abuse your kindness (an unfortunate but necessary evil).

Conclusion: Which is better? When governments take wealth and redistribute it, they do so in a blanket approach that may or may not help anyone. If you yourself does it, you can see where your wealth goes, how your former wealth is used and if it is helping or if you are being abused. It sells itself. Charity, the voluntary redistribution, is the best way to help those who need just a little help to help themselves.

Issue 237 Pray then do it! December 27, 2013

  

When you pray, do you ask God to do things for you? Do you then proceed to watch and wait for it to be done by God on your behalf? If you are then you are doing it wrong.

Don't just pray: In the Bible we are told "God only helps those who help themselves." We are also told that "give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime." So what does this mean? It means that just praying to God to make something occur will not work. God actually wants you to take steps to do something to further your own desire or need. Things don't go your way simply because you want them to or because you ask God, but because you started working toward that goal and acquire the knowledge to further achieve that goal. As such, by going out and trying to achieve the goal while learning as you go, you can succeed in what you want. Will you sometimes fail, yes of course, but you learned from it so you can avoid that failure next time.

Normally I would have at least said a bit more on this matter, but a story tells it better (it’s a variation of one I heard on the television show “The West Wing”).

A man is sitting in his living room and listening to the radio. The radio shouts that a storm is coming. Then the man thinks to himself, I'll be fine for I have God on my side.

The storm begins with trees being blown over outside the mans house. A rescue worker knocks on his door. The man is told you have to come with me, this place is not safe. The man refuses and says "God will save me" and closes the door on the rescue worker.

Now the house is flooded and the man is on the roof of his home. A boat comes by while the storm rages around him. People on the boat beg him to come aboard knowing that if he stays he will die. And still the man refuses, saying that "God will save me."

The man is now dead. He enters heaven and demands to see God. As he approaches Gods throne, he demands to know why he died claiming that he has always been faithful and has strived to remain free of sin. God looks down on him and exclaims "I sent you a radio broadcast, a rescue worker and a boat, so why the hell are you even here?!"

Conclusion: So what can we learn from this little story? The man had faith, and God did try to help him. One problem, he did not try to help himself. This applies to everything in life, if you want something done you can pray, but get to doing something about it. Try to reach your goal with all your might and then and only then will God help you on your journey towards that goal.

Issue 236 Joining Hands December 26, 2013

I have always questioned why the faiths have not teamed up to tackle issue like poverty and world hunger. With all of their resources put together, the faiths could give for free the knowledge needed by the poor to get ahead in life and even the financial means if necessary. So why don't they?

Differences: One of the primary reasons faiths choose not to cooperate is because of the differences of belief that they have. They look at each other with skepticism and sometimes derision (like how Mormons are typically viewed by the rest of the Christian community). But I question this. Is this not being so petty as to not accept aid from your fellow man? It is silly to not accept each others help. The Mormons have a fantastic disaster relief network with them typically getting to the communities in trouble long before the government or even other charities arrive. Catholics have a world wide network which allows them to gather information quickly so as to know what is needed where. Muslims who use sharia law integrate charity into all of there transactions (it’s obligatory), and thus gather large sums of money quickly. However, because of differences in faith and belief, many of these faiths choose not to help each other out. As such, when trouble occurs each choose to continue to do things on there own in there own way. This to me is counter to what my Christian teaching tells me as a Catholic. We do not know who are Gods chosen people and associating with people of a different faith will not make us sinners. So I feel that getting the community of faiths together, even if it is just in your own town and making an emergency supply center/shelter that doubles as a food pantry could be a nice start to something bigger. Who knows, maybe these faiths can even team up to do other things like creating genealogy trees like some Mormon communities do, and maybe revive some of the more stagnant churches by copying some of the Baptist singing and rejoicing in the sermons. If the faiths just cooperate they may yet grow and renew themselves.

Government: The other reason that inhibits faiths from going further is do to the government getting involved with things like welfare. Welfare used to be done by the churches and other similar community groups, but government decided to step in during the Great Depression when it was felt that these churches and groups could not handle the sheer amount of poverty that occurred. It can be argued that the government perpetuated the depression though by slaughtering livestock and burning crops which raised the price of food (see book Grapes of Wrath), the same food that would have been much cheaper and affordable for the poor to buy if not for there interference. Add in price and wage controls and government made it impossible to feed the poor on the cheap. Now there is a way of thinking that the Charities cannot handle the poor if government was to step out of the picture for even a little bit (which I believe is false). This mindset has even infiltrated the churches and as such they have no incentive to go beyond the current services they are offering. Charity used to be local for a reason, to ensure that those who need help get help. But with government, anyone can become a freeloader.

Conclusion: Each of the faiths has much to offer by getting together. They can learn from each other, share resources and information and even set up interfaith networks to handle things like health care, education, the obvious welfare aid and maybe even sanitation if a community needs it. Together the faiths can do it; they can show that government is not needed to survive in the modern world. So start coming together, and start saving people the way God intended.

Issue 235 Merry Christmas December 25, 2013

Well every one, it is now Christmas day.  Time to say a prayer of thanks to Jesus and God and then exchange gifts with your loved ones (whether those gifts be physical or spiritual is up to you).  Thank you for reading today and every day as you all have given me a gift as well.  The gift that my words and ideas mean something to someone else.  So thank you from the bottom of my heart for reading my blog.

 

 

God Bless you all,

 

Merry Christmas

Issue 234 Christmas Means Decemeber 24, 2013

Christmas is short for Christ’s' Mass. It is a time we celebrate and honor the sacrifice that Jesus made for humanity so that we may obtain salvation. But, what is the salvation Jesus gave us and how best should we honor it.

Salvation: Unlike a good number of other religions, in Christianity the aid you give to the needy is voluntary. This is due to the salvation of the spirit being based on an individual bases. If some one else does something good, it bears no reflection on you. The same if you do something bad, it has no effect on the individuals around you because your sin is yours and yours alone. Jesus established a pathway for individual salvation for each and every one of us.

Giving: To honor Jesus' sacrifice we give gifts to those we care about or to strangers in need. But the gifts need not be in the physical form. Those gifts we give can be our kindness, or forgiveness, our hopes and our inspiration. Receiving something like a new PlayStation, car, or anything physical is nice and all, but the receiving is the least important thing. It is about the giving of oneself to another individual because you legitimately care. Not because someone tells you or because Jesus "asked" (key word here) us to give to those have nothing, but because you in your heart really do want to give aid and comfort to others.

Conclusion: This is the Christmas I know and cherish. I do not mind receiving nothing if it should ever come to that (although my mother always tries to get me whatever I want....I don't ask for anything because of that). For me, I am just happy to be surrounded by the family and friends I love and cherish. Being with them to celebrate together is all that I ever really want or ever need.

Issue 233 Faith and God December 23, 2013

There are so many faiths and segments of those faiths that exist in this world. But, what I wondered is why each says they have the right answer? Why does one say that they are right when the others say they are right as well? Let us look a little deeper.

Commonality: All the faiths have a common theme against violence, namely murder in all its forms. Generally they make an exception for self defense and war. They are all anti thievery and each sets up both a moral and religious code. Usually, they say to respect your parents, and of course to respect God (or gods) as the case may be. Many also have a holy day along with parables and stories passed down in holy books to teach life and moral lessons to current and future initiates. In the end there are relatively minor differences especially when it comes to Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Differences: The differences generally stem from diverging aspects of belief. Jews do not believe that Jesus Christ was Gods son, let alone the Messiah. In Islam, Jesus is believed in as a prophet, but he has no divinity what so ever. Also, differences in how one view's the concept of marriage partners like how in Buddhism (or parts of it) do not even have the concept of marriage. Each faith has its own way of thinking that determines how they treat people and each other overall. But, which of these is the correct way of looking at faith? Which is the one to follow to find the salvation we seek? Well, you are not going to figure that out until you die and meet your maker. For the truth is we may all be doing it wrong.

Conclusion: Do not look down on another person because they follow a different faith than you. Never look down upon a person because they believe a little differently than you. The reason is because you, yourself, maybe doing it all wrong (or part of your worship is incorrect). It is much better to learn from each other and find that common ground so as to achieve understanding and knowledge than to fight it out, or tell them they are wrong and ignore a potential friendship. By interacting with each other, we not only share knowledge, but our faith. Some may develop new ideas on how to form a deeper stronger faith, while others may question their faith which could lead them down the path of a deeper more personal faith. So start listening to each other and what you all have to say, for we all may be right and we all may be wrong too. Let us form that personal relationship with God (or gods) that allows us to receive true salvation (which I hope and pray exists).

Issue 232 Track system of education December 20, 2013

The track system of education was designed in the age when production shifted to a factory based system. It was set up to give the top 10% of students the best education so that they would become business leaders and politicians. The next 10% was to be the primary support group for the top 10% with them serving as Secretaries and aids in multiple forms. As for the remaining 80%, they are regulated to the factory and to farm work. Today, the track system is still in place, but I feel that it is more corrosive to society than ever.

A dark deal: The idea was to insure that only the best, education wise, got into positions of power. This however left many other students to be subject to substandard education. As a result, education for the remaining 80% is stagnant. To make matters worse, the track system is still used with the hope of obtaining similar results with that bottom 80% doing the menial jobs in society. It is the opinion of this writer that this is purposeful.

My opinion: I believe they have kept the track system to insure that the majority of the populace remains, in general, uniformed save for what jobs they obtain. It inherently segments a society if your main source of education is what you are told by media, and taught in the work place. But that is exactly what is happening. By preventing the majority from having a coherent education with the ability to think for themselves the elites get a leg up in manipulating the masses into telling them what they can and cannot do. Not only that, the elite's get to decide what an individual needs and does not need. Before the track system, education was earned. If you search for test questions back prior to the industrial revolution you may find questions asking you to list all the kings and queens of the world, what countries they are from and their capitols. Yes, that is one whole question and there was no multiple choice. Students were at that time challenged by the education system so that they would be the most informed and educated in the world.

My other opinion is that the reason the track system is kept is due to the supply and demand principles of the job market. Just like goods and services, a person’s salary is determined by the demand for that person filling that job, and the supply of available people to choose from to fill it. Obviously the less people there are to choose from, the greater the pay. Lawyers and doctors (through various lobbying groups) already do this by making their degrees require a masters and a doctorate degree even if you can get the same quality of each profession if it was allowed to be studied as an undergraduate degree. The track system becomes another reassurance that most people do not make it to the intelligence level to be even able to be accepted into such programs. In essence the system is rigged against the remaining 80% so as to insure that the majority who cannot overcome the education (let alone financial) gap ever reach the higher level positions. As such, it again insures that only the elite not only gets those positions, but also that the pay remains high.

Conclusion: So basically, the track system tries to insure that a good portion of the American public stays below a certain education level. Education in America is so stagnant that test scores have not increased since the creation of the Department of Education in the Jimmy Carter Administration. But what you are not being told is that the tests have been continually dumbed down each and every year just to maintain the look of our nation maintaining its current level of smarts. I would bet anything that if you give a student a test from back in the 70s, let alone the late 1800s, they would fail miserably. Our students are being prepared to be mindless drones for employers to do with as they please, and for politicians to manipulate with ease. It is time to abandon the track system and give everyone a fair shot at the education they deserve.