It’s well known among Christians who know their Bible that Jesus spoke about money more than any other topic. He did not favor the wealthy.
It was Jesus who said that it will be harder for a rich person to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven than it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. Why?
First of all, wealth and power go hand and hand. And, generally speaking, the more wealth one has, the more one uses its power to maintain and/or gain even more control over its access, use, investment, and production. It is no accident that over time wealth tends to accumulate into the hands of a smaller and smaller percentage of people within any given society at any given time in history—note how we Americans have gotten use to referring to the top one or two percent who have, and control, most of the money in our nation.
Politicians representing the wealthy will denigrate anyone who even appears to look like they are living off handouts from the government, yet many of our local, state, and federal tax laws and investment laws and employment laws, etc., actually favor big business, powerful industries, and their wealthy owners.
For example, how is it considered fair and equitable when a wealthy man like Mitt Romney pays no more than 15% on his income taxes while those who will never come close to making what Romney’s has made will have paid as much as 24% or more on their income taxes? Who is getting a handout here? Or how is it considered fair and equitable when a big corporation comes into a state with an agreement that they will have a state tax write-off for doing business in that state, as a so-called incentive to bring-in employment? Why should the tax payer pay for big business handouts of this kind?
God expects His people to be supportive of social justice and the equitable distribution of means and opportunity for all people to prosper and do well—not for the few to live in excess at the expense of the many.
Note the prophet Isaiah’s reproach: “Ah, you who join house to house, who add field to field, until there is room for no one but you, and you are left to live alone in the midst of the land. The Lord of Hosts has sworn in my hearing: surely many houses shall be desolate, large and beautiful houses, without inhabitant. For ten acres of vineyard shall yield but one bath, and a homer of seed shall yield a mere ephah.” [Isaiah 5:8-10]
Note the prophet Amos’ reproach: “Thus says the Lord: For three transgressions of Israel, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment; because they sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals—they who trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth, and push the afflicted out of the way….” [Amos 2:6-7a]
Money, wealth, riches, is not evil or bad in and of itself. Nevertheless, money, and its power, is dangerously seductive. True, very few extremely-wealthy families believe that they are wealthy because they have directly mistreated or oppressed the less fortunate. However, God warns us. There is much more than meets the eye when it comes to why the wealthy have so much and the poor have so little.
Injustice is not just a matter of personal wrongdoing. Injustice is, more often than not, systemic, institutional, and social. Unjust tax laws, inhumane work conditions, unfair employment practices, inequitable banking and investment policies, a skewed and unfair distribution of, and/or access to, basic natural resources (like clean water and clean air or simple basic health care), these systemic imbalances, and much, much more help make the rich, richer, and the poor, poorer.
A Biblical principle and truth is that God expects His people to always be concerned for, care for, and give heed to the needs of the poor, the less fortunate, and the socially and economically oppressed.
Monday, September 24, 2012
Monday, September 17, 2012
Jesus Would Not Support Such Riotous Behavior, I Doubt Muhammad Would Either
More riots, destructive behavior and even murder, because of offense taken, in behalf of the Prophet Muhammad, is this really what the prophet himself wants? Is this what God expects of His devotees?
Islam respects Jesus as a prophet of God as well. Does this kind of hateful riotous behavior come anywhere near close to what Jesus taught, modeled, and proclaimed as a prophet of God? No it does not.
Insult or not, offense taken or not, I don’t see that either Jesus or Muhammad himself would support such cold-blooded murder, the way that Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was murdered, not to mention the other embassy staffers killed along with him. Because of this, I am appreciative of the fact that some Muslims have been brave enough to say as much, to say that this is not commendable nor representative behavior of true Islam and its faithful adherents.
Ambassador Stevens and the other individuals killed along with him had nothing to do with the film that caused the offense. Therefore, one can only conclude that such riotous behavior is a pretext for other concerns—social, economic, national, cultural, and political agenda—certainly not faithfulness and devotion to God and/or his prophet.
Jesus modeled love, compassion, mercy, and grace—even to those who would reject, abuse, and denounce him. Jesus looked to redeem the lost and wayward, not to judge, condemn and kill them. Jesus worked toward changing a man’s heart so as to save him from condemnation and death—not to gleefully gloat over His enemy’s (the God-offender’s) destruction for having done wrong.
It is a sign of greater strength and maturity to overlook an offense rather than to fly off the handle and do unjust harm and perpetrate general destruction to innocent bystanders because of an offense taken. It is a sign of mature faith and true holy and righteous living, when one who is offended behaves in ways that lead to restorative transformation of the offender rather than inciting further hatred by adding offense to offense. In that light, I hope to hear more Muslims speak out against murderous riotous behavior carried out in the name of God’s prophet, when offense is taken by adherents to Islam.
This is what Jesus’ life, actions, and teachings modeled when He faced God-offenders: an offering of restorative healing, an invitation to embrace transformation and renewal, an opportunity to make amends and enter into peace with God.
Following Jesus is more than an ideal. It is a commitment to a higher level of living and being. It is a call to be transformed and renewed into a new kind of person in Jesus. It is the saving of one’s soul and the renewing of one’s mind, and a call to holy, righteous and just living with love and compassion toward all, with the hope that even those outside of the faith—no matter how offensive they may be in their faithlessness—would one day yield to God’s love.
It would be disappointing to think that obedient followers of Islam have a lesser call than that.
Islam respects Jesus as a prophet of God as well. Does this kind of hateful riotous behavior come anywhere near close to what Jesus taught, modeled, and proclaimed as a prophet of God? No it does not.
Insult or not, offense taken or not, I don’t see that either Jesus or Muhammad himself would support such cold-blooded murder, the way that Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was murdered, not to mention the other embassy staffers killed along with him. Because of this, I am appreciative of the fact that some Muslims have been brave enough to say as much, to say that this is not commendable nor representative behavior of true Islam and its faithful adherents.
Ambassador Stevens and the other individuals killed along with him had nothing to do with the film that caused the offense. Therefore, one can only conclude that such riotous behavior is a pretext for other concerns—social, economic, national, cultural, and political agenda—certainly not faithfulness and devotion to God and/or his prophet.
Jesus modeled love, compassion, mercy, and grace—even to those who would reject, abuse, and denounce him. Jesus looked to redeem the lost and wayward, not to judge, condemn and kill them. Jesus worked toward changing a man’s heart so as to save him from condemnation and death—not to gleefully gloat over His enemy’s (the God-offender’s) destruction for having done wrong.
It is a sign of greater strength and maturity to overlook an offense rather than to fly off the handle and do unjust harm and perpetrate general destruction to innocent bystanders because of an offense taken. It is a sign of mature faith and true holy and righteous living, when one who is offended behaves in ways that lead to restorative transformation of the offender rather than inciting further hatred by adding offense to offense. In that light, I hope to hear more Muslims speak out against murderous riotous behavior carried out in the name of God’s prophet, when offense is taken by adherents to Islam.
This is what Jesus’ life, actions, and teachings modeled when He faced God-offenders: an offering of restorative healing, an invitation to embrace transformation and renewal, an opportunity to make amends and enter into peace with God.
Following Jesus is more than an ideal. It is a commitment to a higher level of living and being. It is a call to be transformed and renewed into a new kind of person in Jesus. It is the saving of one’s soul and the renewing of one’s mind, and a call to holy, righteous and just living with love and compassion toward all, with the hope that even those outside of the faith—no matter how offensive they may be in their faithlessness—would one day yield to God’s love.
It would be disappointing to think that obedient followers of Islam have a lesser call than that.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Intelligence isn’t Everything, Belief is…
Have you noticed that there are very intelligent people on both sides?
Very intelligent people believe in God. Very intelligent people do not believe in God. There are intelligent Republicans and there are intelligent Democrats (yes, it’s true). No one side: left or right, conservative or liberal, faith or non-faith, has a corner on intelligence. (I might add of course that there are enough idiots to go around for all sides to claim their fair share of them.)
In actuality, we use our intelligence to explain, justify, and defend our thinking and our beliefs, usually after we’ve made a commitment to said cause, party, or belief. That is, intellectual reasoning, deduction or induction, is really not the primary motivating factor when we decide to commit ourselves to a particular cause or belief. Please note the word, “commit.”
People commit themselves to a cause, because of personal experience, feelings, relationships, and/or inner personal dynamics that feed into their thinking and reaction to a cause or belief. And so, people are passionate about their beliefs and positions mostly because of their personal commitment to it, they have become personal stakeholders.
For example, most people are either Democrat or Republican, not because they have first studiously and coolly analyzed the history of each respective political party and have carefully studied the party’s overall impact on the nation—analyzing its voting history, and its premises, programs, and policies—such study, if it ever happens, and the knowledge gained from it, usually comes after one has already committed him/herself to the party for reasons other than intellectual analysis.
The initial commitment is usually based on relationships, feelings, experiences, and the influence of others that one trusts and respects. Meanwhile, one’s basic assumptions and presumptions go untested, remain unquestioned and avoid analysis. Thus, intellectual defense, explanation, and justification (applied intelligence) follows commitment and rarely precedes it.
This is one reason why religious and political discussions become so heated and may ruin family dinner parties, or may even cause good friendships to breakup. One’s personal commitment, and therefore one’s person—one’s personal view of reality, truth, meaning, and relationships—is threatened by opposing positions or contrary committed belief-systems.
This is also why political-ads full of negative mud-slinging, half-truths, and outright lies against the opposing side, actually do work. In effect, we do NOT want real intellectual insight—truth, good reasoning, knowledge and understanding—what we want is reassurance. We want our chosen party to reassure us that our assumed commitment to a certain set of beliefs and convictions will hold firm—regardless as to whether or not they stand the test of intellectual scrutiny.
Thus, “Don’t confuse me with the facts!” is our real attitude. Facts do NOT speak for themselves. We interpret them according to our liking, our way of thinking, our presumptions and assumptions. And when we come across facts that do not add up with our beliefs or assumptions, we dump them for half-truths and innuendos that do support what we want to hear, what we already believe.
We all believe in something. We all assume. We all commit. But just how much real intellectual thinking goes into our beliefs, our assumptions, and our commitments? If we’re smart, I mean, if we really want good solid reasoning, thinking, knowledge, and truth to influence how we vote and what we support, perhaps we need to ask ourselves: By being committed to this particular position, party, place, or cause, what is it that I am not willing to see or accept—what are my blind spots?
Monday, September 3, 2012
Back to School Encouragement
Going back to school brings with it a mixed bag of feelings for both parents and children: excitement, dread, relief, fear, and hopeful anticipation. This is true whether it’s back to grade school, high school, or college.
How can parents help their children re-enter school, smoothly, constructively?
Extremes are always bad. So, first, be neither a hovering parent nor an abandoning one.
College age parents can be as bad as parents of kindergarteners and first graders.
So, don’t be a “helicopter parent,” hovering over your precious loved one as if s/he can’t breathe without your help. Give them space. Yes, even the little kindergartener may need some space, even while clinging to you with tears crying out “I don’t want to go!”
Certainly we are not talking about abandoning the child. Yes, your “presence” is needed and wanted. Yes, you need to “be there” for them. But remember to maintain appropriate limits for yourself with a healthy attitude of “letting go.” You’re there to release them not to cling to them or have them cling to you. So, “being there” does not mean doing everything for them, or taking control when they should be taking charge for themselves. “Being there,” means giving encouragement, guiding, advising, and reassuring, not taking-over.
You are the parent. Your child should not have to reassure you. Be a non-anxious presence. As the adult, you are to provide calm and steady confidence, where your child may have little. The child needs to look to you for reassurance that all will be well, not the other way around.
Place confidence in your child. Do not scold or harangue the child for lack of confidence or for being nervous and fearful. If your child lacks confidence, reassure him/her with your own confidence in him/her. Also remind the child that s/he not only has your support, but that of the school’s staff, teachers and administrators, as well. Help your child see the people in these roles as caring and supportive people whom they need not fear and need not view as “the enemy.” They are there to help. (And do verify ahead of time that this is exactly the attitude that the school has toward the children.)
Listen! Listen to your child’s comments. Observe! Body language says a lot. Ask and even probe a little, but do not force your child to confide in you. Respect your child’s growing boundaries. As much as you’d like to think so, your child is NOT an extension of yourself. Your child is a separate and distinct human being who will someday grow to become a full adult in his/her own right. Respect your children by really listening to them. Let them tell you what their concerns are rather than you always telling them what you think that they ought to be worried about. Good communication is always a two way street—even with (especially with) children.
And finally, be a lifetime learner yourself. If you want your child to do well in school, you also need to become a model student. Appreciate an open and inquisitive mind, and develop one yourself. Allow your children to question, wonder, doubt, ask, and discover. If your child asks you a question for which you do not have an answer, admit as much. Then, join your child in search for an answer. There is no shame in not knowing. However, there IS much shame in being exposed as a Great Pretender, trying to hide your ignorance or worse, acting as if you know when you really don’t.
Learn to learn, along with your child. In your own heart, remain as child in the realm of discovery and imagination. Your child will be inspired by your own thrill of seeking and learning. Show them that exploration and discovery offers a lifetime of excitement and can be richly fulfilling.
How can parents help their children re-enter school, smoothly, constructively?
Extremes are always bad. So, first, be neither a hovering parent nor an abandoning one.
College age parents can be as bad as parents of kindergarteners and first graders.
So, don’t be a “helicopter parent,” hovering over your precious loved one as if s/he can’t breathe without your help. Give them space. Yes, even the little kindergartener may need some space, even while clinging to you with tears crying out “I don’t want to go!”
Certainly we are not talking about abandoning the child. Yes, your “presence” is needed and wanted. Yes, you need to “be there” for them. But remember to maintain appropriate limits for yourself with a healthy attitude of “letting go.” You’re there to release them not to cling to them or have them cling to you. So, “being there” does not mean doing everything for them, or taking control when they should be taking charge for themselves. “Being there,” means giving encouragement, guiding, advising, and reassuring, not taking-over.
You are the parent. Your child should not have to reassure you. Be a non-anxious presence. As the adult, you are to provide calm and steady confidence, where your child may have little. The child needs to look to you for reassurance that all will be well, not the other way around.
Place confidence in your child. Do not scold or harangue the child for lack of confidence or for being nervous and fearful. If your child lacks confidence, reassure him/her with your own confidence in him/her. Also remind the child that s/he not only has your support, but that of the school’s staff, teachers and administrators, as well. Help your child see the people in these roles as caring and supportive people whom they need not fear and need not view as “the enemy.” They are there to help. (And do verify ahead of time that this is exactly the attitude that the school has toward the children.)
Listen! Listen to your child’s comments. Observe! Body language says a lot. Ask and even probe a little, but do not force your child to confide in you. Respect your child’s growing boundaries. As much as you’d like to think so, your child is NOT an extension of yourself. Your child is a separate and distinct human being who will someday grow to become a full adult in his/her own right. Respect your children by really listening to them. Let them tell you what their concerns are rather than you always telling them what you think that they ought to be worried about. Good communication is always a two way street—even with (especially with) children.
And finally, be a lifetime learner yourself. If you want your child to do well in school, you also need to become a model student. Appreciate an open and inquisitive mind, and develop one yourself. Allow your children to question, wonder, doubt, ask, and discover. If your child asks you a question for which you do not have an answer, admit as much. Then, join your child in search for an answer. There is no shame in not knowing. However, there IS much shame in being exposed as a Great Pretender, trying to hide your ignorance or worse, acting as if you know when you really don’t.
Learn to learn, along with your child. In your own heart, remain as child in the realm of discovery and imagination. Your child will be inspired by your own thrill of seeking and learning. Show them that exploration and discovery offers a lifetime of excitement and can be richly fulfilling.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Todd Akin’s ridiculous “Legitimate Rape” comment reveals how our Beliefs impact our Thinking and vise-a-versa
So, according to Todd Akin, women’s bodies have their own anti-pregnancy defense-mechanism in cases of real rape, i.e., ‘legitimate rape,’ or something to that effect. Uh, but wait, he’s apologized for that statement. Says he misspoke. But the damage is done and now his own party wants him to stand down and resign.
Akin’s comment was ridiculous. Did he really mean what he said? At the time he said those infamous words about ‘legitimate rape,’ he seemed to truly believe that he was speaking truth. And, apology or not, something was revealed in his thinking. Ergo, what we think, what we believe to be true, what we assume is right, what we take as real and factual, all has a direct impact on our actions, choices, attitudes, and behavior, and thereby impacts others as well; for we are all interconnected.
This creates a huge challenge for a diverse, democratic, and pluralistic society such as ours. How do we make good laws, if we can’t even agree on the moral foundations or principles upon which these laws should be based?
What is right and good, the best way to live? What is wrong and bad, the worst way to live? And how does one distinguish between the two? What is the measure of good and right action? Why, for example, does everyone agree in our society that rape is a very bad thing, while we are not at all in agreement that abortion is a very bad thing?
Is morality only culturally relative, simply a matter of personal choice, tied to a particular person, place, and time? Or is morality absolute and universal, to be applied in the same way, in the same manner, to everyone, everywhere, regardless of place, time, and person? Or is it a mixture of both: universal truths applied relatively, tailored to specific time periods and particular cases, places, and people?
Deciding whether one’s action is moral and just, is not always as easy as we’d like to think. When it comes to questions of morality and justice, as in so many other areas of life, simplistic—one size fits all—answers, seldom do justice. This is why we need law courts and judges, is it not? What we need is sound wisdom, insightful discernment, and good judgment—the capacity to discern and make right decisions in the face of conflicting choices or opposing sides. (Which begs the question, for what do we accept as the basis of sound, wise, and insightful discernment these days?)
This is why perhaps the tendency on both the far left and the far right is to seek authoritative power to become master over their opponents by legislative rule. That is, rather than seeking good sound-judgment and wise insightful-discernment on many conflicting issues, our present political approach is to polarize and vote for black-and-white authoritarian laws that strike down the individual and particular freedoms of all opposing perspectives and alternative viewpoints—e.g., ban all abortions of any kind, for whatever reason, whatever the cause, outcome, or means. Or, ban all handheld guns, everywhere, anywhere, for whomever, whatever the need or reason one wanted such a gun.
Opposing sides take godlike positions. The atheist, rationalist, agnostic unbeliever wants unyielding authoritative laws to protect his/her godlike status in being able to command his/her own life as he/she sees fit. Meanwhile, the devout religious believer, asserts his/her particular faith, his or her particular understanding and interpretation of God, as THE quintessential True Faith, and speaks as one who speaks for God, with Godlike authority—to whom all are expected to obey and submit. (I know, for I believe that Jesus is the Messiah, Lord and Savior of all humanity, and believe that you also should receive Him and submit to His Lordship in your life as well. However, I also believe that it must be a free choice. That is, you must not ever be forced to become a Christian against your will, nor should you be forced to submit to the dictates of Christian teachings against your will.)
Still, we all believe in morality. We wouldn’t have laws against rape, robbery, and murder, if we didn’t. But where then do we draw the line between our differences? Why do some believe that abortion is not murder, while others of us do believe very much that it is the taking of precious life? We are not going to get anywhere by simply trying to outmaneuver one another at the voting booth. A 51% vote in our favor is not going to end the argument, battle, or disagreement as to who is right and who is wrong. We need to have a serious discussion about our rationale, our beliefs, and about the basis of our moral understandings. And then we have to find some way to respect our differences, live with our disagreements, while still maintaining integrity with our own convictions—and still remain a united nation.
Akin’s comment was ridiculous. Did he really mean what he said? At the time he said those infamous words about ‘legitimate rape,’ he seemed to truly believe that he was speaking truth. And, apology or not, something was revealed in his thinking. Ergo, what we think, what we believe to be true, what we assume is right, what we take as real and factual, all has a direct impact on our actions, choices, attitudes, and behavior, and thereby impacts others as well; for we are all interconnected.
This creates a huge challenge for a diverse, democratic, and pluralistic society such as ours. How do we make good laws, if we can’t even agree on the moral foundations or principles upon which these laws should be based?
What is right and good, the best way to live? What is wrong and bad, the worst way to live? And how does one distinguish between the two? What is the measure of good and right action? Why, for example, does everyone agree in our society that rape is a very bad thing, while we are not at all in agreement that abortion is a very bad thing?
Is morality only culturally relative, simply a matter of personal choice, tied to a particular person, place, and time? Or is morality absolute and universal, to be applied in the same way, in the same manner, to everyone, everywhere, regardless of place, time, and person? Or is it a mixture of both: universal truths applied relatively, tailored to specific time periods and particular cases, places, and people?
Deciding whether one’s action is moral and just, is not always as easy as we’d like to think. When it comes to questions of morality and justice, as in so many other areas of life, simplistic—one size fits all—answers, seldom do justice. This is why we need law courts and judges, is it not? What we need is sound wisdom, insightful discernment, and good judgment—the capacity to discern and make right decisions in the face of conflicting choices or opposing sides. (Which begs the question, for what do we accept as the basis of sound, wise, and insightful discernment these days?)
This is why perhaps the tendency on both the far left and the far right is to seek authoritative power to become master over their opponents by legislative rule. That is, rather than seeking good sound-judgment and wise insightful-discernment on many conflicting issues, our present political approach is to polarize and vote for black-and-white authoritarian laws that strike down the individual and particular freedoms of all opposing perspectives and alternative viewpoints—e.g., ban all abortions of any kind, for whatever reason, whatever the cause, outcome, or means. Or, ban all handheld guns, everywhere, anywhere, for whomever, whatever the need or reason one wanted such a gun.
Opposing sides take godlike positions. The atheist, rationalist, agnostic unbeliever wants unyielding authoritative laws to protect his/her godlike status in being able to command his/her own life as he/she sees fit. Meanwhile, the devout religious believer, asserts his/her particular faith, his or her particular understanding and interpretation of God, as THE quintessential True Faith, and speaks as one who speaks for God, with Godlike authority—to whom all are expected to obey and submit. (I know, for I believe that Jesus is the Messiah, Lord and Savior of all humanity, and believe that you also should receive Him and submit to His Lordship in your life as well. However, I also believe that it must be a free choice. That is, you must not ever be forced to become a Christian against your will, nor should you be forced to submit to the dictates of Christian teachings against your will.)
Still, we all believe in morality. We wouldn’t have laws against rape, robbery, and murder, if we didn’t. But where then do we draw the line between our differences? Why do some believe that abortion is not murder, while others of us do believe very much that it is the taking of precious life? We are not going to get anywhere by simply trying to outmaneuver one another at the voting booth. A 51% vote in our favor is not going to end the argument, battle, or disagreement as to who is right and who is wrong. We need to have a serious discussion about our rationale, our beliefs, and about the basis of our moral understandings. And then we have to find some way to respect our differences, live with our disagreements, while still maintaining integrity with our own convictions—and still remain a united nation.
Monday, August 20, 2012
The Heart and Soul of Business is actually NOT Profit
Buyer beware!
Business is business.
It’s a dog-eat-dog world out there.
Bull markets, bear markets, loan sharks, sell high, buy low.
And money don't grow on trees!
Henry Ford once said, “A business that makes nothing but money is a poor business.” So, what is business supposed to be about if not to make money? That is, what is the heart and soul of business? Believe it or not, it is NOT making money!
A real business is in business to offer a service, to fill a need, to support and enhance the lives of people. The profit that comes from providing such service is the reward, so long as it is proportionally reasonable. Has the American business community lost sight of this basic economic truth?
There have always been loan sharks, robber barons, cheats, liars, and thieves, always will be. But that is not Main Street America. Business in Main Street America has always been about providing a service, making a living, not a killing.
A businessperson that says, “There’s a sucker born every minute,” while looking for his/her next victim is not doing real business. If all a businessperson does is come up with a solution, and then manufactures a need for that solution, no real business is being accomplished. There are a lot of fraudulent and manufactured schemes in the world of finance, having the sole purpose of taking people’s money away from them. It’s called scamming, not business.
If the so called bottom line—money, profit, net gain—is all that a businessperson has in mind, his heart is hardened and his soul is dead. Pity the one who does any business with such a one as he or she. But a business person who offers a product or service that people truly need and want, and does so with a genuine interest in his/her client’s best interest in mind. Happy and blessed are provider and buyer; for both have done well and will go home satisfied, knowing that they have served and have been served.
As Charles Dickens said long ago, humanity is our business. Wake up America! Let’s go back to the basics regarding the purpose of business. It’s not about naked profit, winner takes all. It’s about life. Remember the movie, It’s a Wonderful Life? The movie reminds us that the banker should be there to help couples save, invest, and to grow their families and homes. And in, A Christmas Carol, Scrooge’s transformation reminds us that money is not for selfish, greedy and miserly hoarding, but for investing in human lives, in their needs as well as in their visions and dreams, to make a better world not only for one’s self, but for one’s community, neighbors and friends.
That’s the ideal America, and that’s the ideal business-mindset. Profit is secondary. The primary goal of business, any business, should be to provide a service and fill a genuine need in a context of fair-trade and just exchange, to produce opportunity for better, healthier, and more wholesome living—so that all may grow and prosper in the areas that money cannot buy—family life, relationship building, child rearing, and inner growth—mind, heart, and spiritual development.
If you are a business person, keep in mind the following simple truths.
1. Money is neutral, neither good nor bad. However, money IS powerful and easily corrupts, and the love of money is truly the root of much evil that is done in this world. Do not let the love of money corrupt your heart.
2. You can’t take it with you. He who dies with the most toys… still dies! Naked you came into the world and naked you shall leave the world. Jesus said what good is it if you gain the whole world and forfeit your soul?
There is no bribing God. Having all the money in the world will be no protection against Judgment Day. (Do you really think there will be no Judgment on your life?)
Business is business.
It’s a dog-eat-dog world out there.
Bull markets, bear markets, loan sharks, sell high, buy low.
And money don't grow on trees!
Henry Ford once said, “A business that makes nothing but money is a poor business.” So, what is business supposed to be about if not to make money? That is, what is the heart and soul of business? Believe it or not, it is NOT making money!
A real business is in business to offer a service, to fill a need, to support and enhance the lives of people. The profit that comes from providing such service is the reward, so long as it is proportionally reasonable. Has the American business community lost sight of this basic economic truth?
There have always been loan sharks, robber barons, cheats, liars, and thieves, always will be. But that is not Main Street America. Business in Main Street America has always been about providing a service, making a living, not a killing.
A businessperson that says, “There’s a sucker born every minute,” while looking for his/her next victim is not doing real business. If all a businessperson does is come up with a solution, and then manufactures a need for that solution, no real business is being accomplished. There are a lot of fraudulent and manufactured schemes in the world of finance, having the sole purpose of taking people’s money away from them. It’s called scamming, not business.
If the so called bottom line—money, profit, net gain—is all that a businessperson has in mind, his heart is hardened and his soul is dead. Pity the one who does any business with such a one as he or she. But a business person who offers a product or service that people truly need and want, and does so with a genuine interest in his/her client’s best interest in mind. Happy and blessed are provider and buyer; for both have done well and will go home satisfied, knowing that they have served and have been served.
As Charles Dickens said long ago, humanity is our business. Wake up America! Let’s go back to the basics regarding the purpose of business. It’s not about naked profit, winner takes all. It’s about life. Remember the movie, It’s a Wonderful Life? The movie reminds us that the banker should be there to help couples save, invest, and to grow their families and homes. And in, A Christmas Carol, Scrooge’s transformation reminds us that money is not for selfish, greedy and miserly hoarding, but for investing in human lives, in their needs as well as in their visions and dreams, to make a better world not only for one’s self, but for one’s community, neighbors and friends.
That’s the ideal America, and that’s the ideal business-mindset. Profit is secondary. The primary goal of business, any business, should be to provide a service and fill a genuine need in a context of fair-trade and just exchange, to produce opportunity for better, healthier, and more wholesome living—so that all may grow and prosper in the areas that money cannot buy—family life, relationship building, child rearing, and inner growth—mind, heart, and spiritual development.
If you are a business person, keep in mind the following simple truths.
1. Money is neutral, neither good nor bad. However, money IS powerful and easily corrupts, and the love of money is truly the root of much evil that is done in this world. Do not let the love of money corrupt your heart.
2. You can’t take it with you. He who dies with the most toys… still dies! Naked you came into the world and naked you shall leave the world. Jesus said what good is it if you gain the whole world and forfeit your soul?
There is no bribing God. Having all the money in the world will be no protection against Judgment Day. (Do you really think there will be no Judgment on your life?)
Monday, August 13, 2012
Should Islamic, Sharia Law, be used in American Law Courts?
There is a growing tension and debate over allowing the dictates of Sharia Law as consideration for determining outcomes in our U.S. law courts, so much so that some states have enacted legislation banning the use of “foreign Laws” in their courts (e.g., the State of Kansas). Such anti foreign-law legislation is clearly aimed at banning the use of Islamic Sharia Law.
Muslim groups, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are arguing against such bans. They want the dictates of Sharia Law to be acceptable and applicable in our American court system, when deemed relevant to a case.
I am skeptical and distrustful. But let me be clear: I am NOT in favor of a militant attitude against Islam and its followers here in America. This is a free country. This country is based upon freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, and freedom of religion. However, I do have my concerns about the creeping-in of Sharia Islamic Law’s influence, its use and application here, within our American courts of law. Why?
I’ll give you a ‘for instances.’ Recently a man literally had his hand chopped off, for sheep-stealing (originally it was supposedly a stolen motorcycle). This astounds me. This cutting-off of the hand took place earlier this month, Wednesday, August 8th. It was as a result of the strict application of Islamic Sharia Law; now, today, in the year 2012. Yes, those who did the hand-cutting were Islamic extremists. And yes, this happened on the other side of the world, in Mali. Nevertheless, these Islamic extremists justified their actions on the basis of strict adherence to Sharia Law. Furthermore, a witness later testified, so I read, that after the Islamists cut-off the young man’s hand, they also put his arm in boiling oil. Google it, see for yourself.
“That was in Mali, not America. That kind of thing won’t happen here,” Islamic supporters of Sharia Law will say. Maybe not, but I have to wonder what will happen here, if acceptance and consideration of Islamic Sharia Law becomes more and more acceptable in our law-courts?
Now, I have to say that I know little about Sharia Law. I readily admit my ignorance. Still, I am greatly put-off by what I do see and hear, as to how Sharia Law is used, interpreted and applied by various Islamic adherents around the world. As I see it, the onus, the burden of proof, is on adherents to Sharia Law—to prove to me, to us U.S. citizens—that the application of Sharia law is not contrary to our own American law system, as to its premises, assumptions, values, and asserted truths—not the other way around.
In fact, the basis of Sharia Law has a very different set of foundational assumptions than do our American laws—especially with respect to religious authority, social justice and its practice, and social values and their implementation. As it is, we already have a two-way battle going-on between two conflicting world-view assumptions and authorities: the opposing beliefs between secular humanism on the one side and Judeo-Christian beliefs on the other. Sharia Law introduces a third worldview, a new meta-authority with its own set of foundational premises, assumptions, and propositions. And at the core, all laws are interpreted and applied on the basis of assumed foundational and universal propositional truths. For example, I know this much, under Sharia Law, women and men are NOT equal, and women do NOT have the same rights and privileges as do men. Period!
By writing this, I’m sure to be labeled as Islamophobic. These days, if you want to discredit a person’s opinion, all you have to do is say that he or she has a phobia about the issue, adding phobic to the end of the subject in question—oh, don’t listen to him, he’s just [in this case] Islam-o-phobic. To be phobic about something is to have an irrational fear of something. And that’s the dismissing point, to be irrationally fearful. And that’s my point. I don’t think that I am at all being irrational about this. My fear of Sharia Law makes a lot of sense in the context of today’s world. At this point, I am not at all convinced that the application of Sharia Law has any rightful place in the law courts of the United States of America.
Muslim groups, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are arguing against such bans. They want the dictates of Sharia Law to be acceptable and applicable in our American court system, when deemed relevant to a case.
I am skeptical and distrustful. But let me be clear: I am NOT in favor of a militant attitude against Islam and its followers here in America. This is a free country. This country is based upon freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, and freedom of religion. However, I do have my concerns about the creeping-in of Sharia Islamic Law’s influence, its use and application here, within our American courts of law. Why?
I’ll give you a ‘for instances.’ Recently a man literally had his hand chopped off, for sheep-stealing (originally it was supposedly a stolen motorcycle). This astounds me. This cutting-off of the hand took place earlier this month, Wednesday, August 8th. It was as a result of the strict application of Islamic Sharia Law; now, today, in the year 2012. Yes, those who did the hand-cutting were Islamic extremists. And yes, this happened on the other side of the world, in Mali. Nevertheless, these Islamic extremists justified their actions on the basis of strict adherence to Sharia Law. Furthermore, a witness later testified, so I read, that after the Islamists cut-off the young man’s hand, they also put his arm in boiling oil. Google it, see for yourself.
“That was in Mali, not America. That kind of thing won’t happen here,” Islamic supporters of Sharia Law will say. Maybe not, but I have to wonder what will happen here, if acceptance and consideration of Islamic Sharia Law becomes more and more acceptable in our law-courts?
Now, I have to say that I know little about Sharia Law. I readily admit my ignorance. Still, I am greatly put-off by what I do see and hear, as to how Sharia Law is used, interpreted and applied by various Islamic adherents around the world. As I see it, the onus, the burden of proof, is on adherents to Sharia Law—to prove to me, to us U.S. citizens—that the application of Sharia law is not contrary to our own American law system, as to its premises, assumptions, values, and asserted truths—not the other way around.
In fact, the basis of Sharia Law has a very different set of foundational assumptions than do our American laws—especially with respect to religious authority, social justice and its practice, and social values and their implementation. As it is, we already have a two-way battle going-on between two conflicting world-view assumptions and authorities: the opposing beliefs between secular humanism on the one side and Judeo-Christian beliefs on the other. Sharia Law introduces a third worldview, a new meta-authority with its own set of foundational premises, assumptions, and propositions. And at the core, all laws are interpreted and applied on the basis of assumed foundational and universal propositional truths. For example, I know this much, under Sharia Law, women and men are NOT equal, and women do NOT have the same rights and privileges as do men. Period!
By writing this, I’m sure to be labeled as Islamophobic. These days, if you want to discredit a person’s opinion, all you have to do is say that he or she has a phobia about the issue, adding phobic to the end of the subject in question—oh, don’t listen to him, he’s just [in this case] Islam-o-phobic. To be phobic about something is to have an irrational fear of something. And that’s the dismissing point, to be irrationally fearful. And that’s my point. I don’t think that I am at all being irrational about this. My fear of Sharia Law makes a lot of sense in the context of today’s world. At this point, I am not at all convinced that the application of Sharia Law has any rightful place in the law courts of the United States of America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)