Sunday, February 12, 2012

A Matter Of Principle






This is my "Cultural Strategy & Development" blog and not my political blog so I must reduce the name calling take a different angle in my arguments as I make my point.

I have stated previously that the times that we are entering into requires that everyone KNOW THEMSELVES, taking inventory of what they believe because the times that are ahead of us are going to require such a consciousness in order to avoid being compelled into accepting a way of life that simply cannot be sustained.

Above is the best, most rational rebuttal of "popular assumptions" that I have ever heard in a live, one on one, interview-debate.

South African Cardinal Wilfrid  Fox Napier earns my award for defending the 'equal humanity and higher purpose" of man in the face of a series of questions that would have caused a lesser man to fold in the name of political correctness.

Cardinal Napier vs The Philosophy Of The American "Professional Progressive Political Preachers"

In America today we are battling over:

  • The "Right" to government mandated birth control
  • HIV/AIDS funding by the government
  • The "Rights" for homosexuals to marry - regardless of the "will of the people" that was registered by a popular vote
These and other societal issues do much to expose the vast differences in the philosophy and agendas of the two groups of theoreticians itemized in the section title above.

Two admissions:
  1. While in church today I had one ear on the pastor and another hear using my smartphone and note pad to do research on the two points of emphasis of one's "Christian walk" that are documented above.
  2. I have a bias toward #2 as the most scalable, enduring and "prune and graft-able" choice between the two.
As Americans we are so caught up in the transactions of the "Malcolm X Political Football Game" as we advocate for a victory for "our side" that many if not most never take a step back and consider the founding principles from which they operate from.  Worse they never consider what their "victories" will lead society.  

From my notes I recorded and read the two passages that introduced "The Least Of These" and "God Made Man In His Own Image'.   It is my belief that the later is a superior commandment to the former BUT this should not give license for anyone to abscond from his obligations to his neighbors.

As a Christian I support the notion that we should help our neighbors:
  • Feed them if they are in desperate need of food
  • Provide them with a drink if they are thirsty
  • Offer them shelter if they are exposed to the elements
  • Visit them if they are isolated and in need of company
These are all legitimate admonitions to hold anyone who calls himself a "Christian" accountable to perform.   

The main problem with this as applied to the Professional Progressive Political Preacher in America is, however, they are taking a CHRISTIAN admonition and attempting to operationalize it in POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT.   

Just as the right-wing firebrand evangelical politician attempts to achieve his "Christian ends" trough the government and is called out for it - so too must the progressive, 'social justice' operative for see seeking to do so using "secular progressive" policies.   In both cases they are forced to marginalize the intelligence and obligation that God created man as "equal human beings" - greater than the beasts and able to prioritize a certain purpose beyond what his instinctual needs would have him do.

The brilliance of Cardinal Napier's comments is that he was not ashamed to cling to the ESSENTIAL HUMANITY OF MAN.   In a world where "those who promises to give the most through the government" is the winner - Napier believes that this merely brings forth irresponsible behavior.  

He challenges all of the "equal human beings in society" to become conscious of the society that they wish to have and to submit themselves and their behavior to a higher calling - from which many of the problems that ensnare them would be less of a challenge.

We often hear that certain ethnic groups never had a problem with obesity or diabetes until they came to America and submitted to America's culture of eating and activity.   From this condition some people would be prone to provide the services necessary to treat the clinical condition that they face.  Others might dare to look at the change in the operating landscape, proclaiming that in order for them to move forward they must leave behind certain behaviors that only seem like advancements but instead are damaging to them.

Cardinal Napier can't rationally be held accountable for the high rates of HIV infections (and rape) in South Africa.  The only "flock" that he can claim as his own are those who recognize his institution and position and agree to be worthy disciples of the God that he seeks to expose them to.

As for the government - it is equally folly for anyone to believe that they can advocate for the central government to become the end all and be all to everyone in society - functionally "protecting them from themselves" - a .2 mil think of latex protecting them from the "body fluid exchange" that they have agreed to.   This is the promotion of "pills / pamphlets and devices" over human intelligence which has affirmed the primary goal of us all - Self Perpetuation.  

The question that must guide the decision is NOT "Who will provide the most 'social justice' coverage for us all?"

It is WHO will bring more equal human beings to the awareness of their own individual value thus maximizing their production for the greater whole? 

1 comment:

kendrick Morris said...

Hi

We often hear that certain ethnic groups never had a problem with obesity or diabetes until they came to America and submitted to America's culture of a counterfeit eating and activity.

Eating becomes a hankering and a 'remembering of identity' and no longer just feeding for physical sustenance. You grow to feed the many bodies in there and no longer focus on what's going in.

'Love God with all your heart mind and soul' has an equal commandment to 'love your neighbor as yourself'.

To see from the highest and the lowest.

When someone comes with God, you can ask "was He angry, was He Jealous? My God is much nobler than that" and let every one of them depart. When someone comes with poverty you ask "were you angry, were you jealous? Life is to live without this yoke" and let them leave.

The ones who replied "I'm sorry, I don't actually have a clue who God is, but everything around us must be part of a Creator which means you and I am too" and "I'm sorry I lost my way and now have come back to my senses" to them you invite into your home and can leave the childen unattended.

They do not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.