Truth must stand on its own merits:
Truth in the absence of adversity grows flaccid, less manly:
The absence of Truth encourages Ignorance and Falsehood:
Truth is tempered by Trial and Suffering:
Truth must never serve Evil:
Truth and Meaning are not synonymous:
Truth provides sustenance to Meaning:
A mind seeking perfection is receptive to Truth:
God‘s Wisdom is the Highest Truth.
• • •
It seems that although families are becoming smaller, automobiles are becoming bigger!
• • •
When I was I young man, I would occasionally pour over a copy of a Playboy Magazine, not for the articles, mind you, but for the pictures!
• • •
Justice, in the mind of a Cynic, is that which promotes Self-Interest!
• • •
Personal Computers (PC‘s) are delaying the development of Social Skills!
• • •
America‘s growing dependence on OPEC is gradually promoting its own (economic) destruction!
• • •
An African American baseball player recently remarked that A.A‘s were under represented (9 percent) in the major leagues although these statistics closely approximate the national average. His comments failed to factor into account the massive influx of Caribbean and South American ball players, many of whom are people of color although not properly African ―American.‖ That many A.A‘s have chosen other athletic venues like basketball and football is a question of choice rather than exclusionary practices. I wonder where this obsessive preoccupation with race is destined to lead our society. I would remind this young man that whatever franchise in whatever sport, team owners are looking to recruit the most talented athletes available on the open market that offers its club the best opportunity to win regardless of color or ethnicity.
• • •
An opinion is as good as any another unless grounded on questionable assumptions, faulty reasoning, uncertain knowledge and arbitrary viewpoints.
• • •
The Socratic Method improperly applied may engender Moral Relativism!
• • •
Although Miracles (may) cast away Doubt, Faith provides its (own) internal rewards for its (own) sake.
• • •
Principles grounded in mistaken assumptions are misleading deceptions!
• • •
Although crime may be conditioned by poverty, it does not necessarily follow that poverty pre-conditions crime.
• • •
Familiarity not only breeds Contempt but complacency, which is almost as bad!
• • •
133Having a serious ―talk‖ with someone is not necessarily the same thing as having a serious ―conversation‖ with that person.
• • •
Moral Issues are ―complex‖ to those lacking a moral compass; otherwise, such issues should not (normally) present a problem.
• • •
Harriet Miers, (erstwhile) nominee for the Supreme Court, recently withdrew her nomination in response to widespread criticisms emerging from the president‘s rapidly receding conservative base. I suppose the president had few options other than to accept ―her‖decision given that his recent approval ratings have fallen somewhere in the neighborhood of the ―Mendoza‖ line. The war in Iraq, burgeoning budget deficits, escalating energy prices, the Katrina fumble, immigration and controversies surrounding his chief political advisor have contributed to the president‘s growing unpopularity among Liberals and Conservatives, alike, thereby exhausting whatever remaining political capital he might have had in advancing the judicial career of a long time friend. I find it somewhat amusing, however, if not disingenuous, that some liberals consider her rescission a ―victory‖ for the Democratic Party.
An acquaintance of mine recently expressed some concern over the (potential) appointment of a practicing Baptist likely to influence the ideological composition of the Court, thereby overturning hard-fought legal battles like the (omnipresent) Roe v. Wade, as a (poster) example. He could not understand how any thoughtful individual (referring to the president) could conceivably support someone ―likely‖ to undermine a judicial process that has served the nation well for so many years. I must confess that I never considered the fact that Ms. Miers possessed such extraordinary talents and inestimable influence that could conceivably unravel fifty years of Supreme Court decisions! (Unquestionably some laws should be repealed although that is merely my own point of view.) Perhaps this individual might have considered reading up on Ms. Miers (historical) lower-court opinions relating to Abortion (―right of self-determination‖) and other social issues of immediate concern to most Conservatives before rushing to judgment. These opinions were not lost, however, on savvier Liberals who (privately) regarded her withdrawal as a lost opportunity in pushing the Court further to the left. That her nomination and subsequent rescission proved embarrassing to the president took some of the ―sting‖
out of it, I suppose. I could have correctly reminded this gentleman that former president James Earl Carter, who as president, influenced the ideological composition of our nation‘s federal courts, was a professed ―born-again Christian‖, a Baptist, but why trouble ourselves with such ―minor‖ details. Besides, his record on Abortion speaks for itself! I suppose my real concern, however, centers on prevailing liberal/secularist sentiments portraying Christians as unsuitable candidates for the Supreme Court, or any other higher court for that matter, lest their religious viewpoints should otherwise color an (objective) interpretation of the law. Such (bigoted) thinking strikes at the very heart of the Separation of Church and State. That judicial nominees are being routinely challenged on private matters of Faith is setting a troubling precedence in our nation. What kind of a message does such inquisitional posturing convey to people of Faith that they need not apply?
• • •
God does not exist ―within‖ Nature; that is to say, God is not a constituent (or component part) of Nature. As the Creator of all Things, God must (necessarily) stand ―apart‖ from His (own) creative designs. It does not follow that (the) creator and the (created) object of his or her creation are united as resident parts of (that) (created) whole. That is to say, a creator cannot be a (component) part of his or her own creation because Creator and (the) Created are necessarily restricted by the circumstantial dynamics of practical invention that (otherwise) sets them apart. Perhaps it might be more appropriate to say that God‘s underlying ―presence‖ is properly reflected in His Works and therefore ―exists‖ within the spiritual context of His Creation.
• • •
Addendum to the above: It is certain, however, that the product of one‘s (own) imagination (or its descriptive designs) retains its own internal or conscious impressions that unite Thinker and Thought in a manner that reveals or expresses the inner ‖being‖ of the Thinker.
• • •
Knowledge is incomplete unless conditioned by Faith, or until the whys and the whats are understood as well as the hows in a manner that, understood in their entirety, synthesizes Knowledge and Faith.
• • •
The consequences of Free Will extend beyond the Present. Because Humankind‘s (natural) designs are oftentimes restricted by its limited, (worldly) conceptions, understood in terms of its (temporal) dimensions, it (necessarily) follows that the outcome of its intended actions must remain (largely) unknown until they have been (formally) determined. I have written elsewhere that God―extends‖ backward and forward in (constant) time; that is to say, God is Time Eternal. God sees all that was, is and will become because ―time,‖ correctly understood, is an invariant component of Eternity. What may appear ―timely‖ within our limited perceptions of time and space is ‖timeless‖ to One who lies beyond the boundaries of ―arbitrary‖ measures. These (human) restrictions, however, do not preclude the exercising of Free Will (or an individual‘s inherent capacity to make informed or independent decisions) that remain (the) necessary requirements for self-sufficiency and determination; whose absence would reduce Humankind to scripted characters in a play lacking moral and intellectual substance (or spiritual awareness) that otherwise elevates an individual beyond ceremonial customs to aspired spiritual ideals. Therefore, choices that are made reflect personal decisions that, whether for good or ill, every individual must ultimately be held accountable. God sees or will see because He already sees final results and where such 134
outcomes must (―inevitably‖) lead, although not necessarily so, provided that the correct decisions are made.
• • •
An extremist is an individual who never allows facts to get in the way of whatever he or she believes.
• • •
―Complex,‖ in the political arena, is a term commonly employed by politicians and their supporters trying to defend indefensible positions!
• • •
It has been oftentimes argued in some environmental circles that the extinction of any species, whether animal or plant, would trigger an ecological chain of events endangering Nature‘s ‖precarious‖ equilibrium. I find such arguments implausible to say the least. After all, our planet has witnessed the extinction of a variety of species over the centuries whether insect, reptile or mammal replaced by others through the processes of Biological Evolution and Natural Selection. Perhaps ecological subsystems would be compromised although its universal impact appears problematical. Natural environments are not constant however constantly changing in a manner―consistently‖ adaptive to change. ―Populations split into different species which are related because they are descended from a common ancestor‖ (Darwinism). Even the most rapid, cataclysmic changes in any environment must ultimately pave the way for competitive forces where the more dominant strains outlast the weaker, eventually staking their own exceptional claims on Nature (Survival of the Fittest).
• • •
The Metropolis is not a natural (social) arrangement but an artificial one, rather, conditioned by Necessity. This partially explains, perhaps, why many of us oftentimes seek our ―natural‖ calling in (more) peaceful environments.
• • •
While driving through Wyoming, my wife (Rose) made an offhanded remark that Satan (Prince of Darkness) has used the Twentieth Century as his base of operations, or words to that effect, to discredit Christianity. No sooner had she completed her thought, when gazing down at her odometer, she observed the number 666.0! (I place special emphasis on the 0.) After having driven no more than a quarter of a mile from that point, we passed an exit sign that read ―Devils Tower.‖ I will leave it up to the reader to decide whether or not this was merely owing to Chance!
• • •
Primitive cultures possessed a spiritual intuitiveness common among all peoples throughout history, (however) uncultivated or uncivilized, in a manner suggesting a higher spiritual presence (however) unknowing to unformed minds not given to critical thinking (however) inspired by the notion of ―god‖ or gods that every society, high or low, has understood and worshiped in its own peculiar manner; ordered by superstitious and tribal expressions until (more) refining influences and a (more) favorable ordering of the mind otherwise seasoned such thinking by providing substantive form to its beliefs.
• • •
It has oftentimes been said that the American Worker is the most ―productive‖ in the world. As an American, who am I to contest such arguments, although having the right tools certainly helps!
• • •
A quick thought about Wal-Mart and the vitriolic attacks directed against the retail chain in recent years by the liberal community. It is easy enough, I suppose, for café latte types earning above average salaries to criticize the company from the vantage point of high-rise corporate towers and sprawling industrial parks where office workers, comfortably ensconced in the privacy of their cubicles, routinely shop on their Internets or indulge in a casual game of solitaire while pretending to look busy. My modest travels have enabled me achieve a (peripheral) understanding of just how vital these chain stores (Wal-Mart among others) are to ―average‖working men and women residing in ―backwater‖ towns where, if someone isn‘t plowing shares, punching cattle or a time card or driving a truck, informs the traveler of other (diminishing) opportunities in quasi-depressed areas receptive to the well connected or talented few. I would encourage any cosmopolitan, upscale type to venture a trip across our nation‘s rural heartlands before rendering smug judgments. If they have and still aren‘t convinced of chain stores‘ economic importance to people who are barely making ends meet, then so much the worse for them!
Being an old-fashion type myself, it troubles me to observe how the ―face‖ of America, its smaller communities (once) commonly referred to as ―Americana,‖ is gradually transforming itself before my (very) eyes. Perhaps its many (erstwhile) faces would provide a more accurate description of what has (now) given way to a troubling sense of ―sameness‖ that seems to typify a number of towns and cities across the nation. Missing are the notable, home like qualities and atmosphere of mom-and-pop stores, common in my youth, that are being routinely superseded by uniform shopping centers. It is sad to say that all things must eventually come to an end. On the other hand, does any right-thinking individual believe that employees of small businesses a half century or more ago enjoyed the security of reasonable wages and extensive benefits, including health insurance, that most workers typically enjoy in today‘s 135
standardized working environments? When measured in constant dollars, is he or she properly convinced that the average worker employed in comparable positions is relatively worse off today? It seems that the (fictitious) contempt for Wal-Mart and to a lesser extent, their competitors who are being given a free pass for not performing quite as well, perhaps, has less to do with the negative impact on traditional (small) businesses and changing landscapes than their (Democrats‘) obligatory pandering to their union base whose conflicting interests, properly understood, need not be elaborated here.
• • •
I believe that the two watershed presidential elections of the twentieth century occurred in 1964 and again in 1972. Both elections ended in resounding defeats for the Republican (Conservative) candidate Barry Goldwater in 1964 and the Democratic (Liberal) candidate, George McGovern in 1972, respectively. Nevertheless, it is not without irony that from the smoldering ashes of defeat emerged off-centered platforms that would quickly come to define both party‘s sociopolitical ideologies in the coming years.America‘s political landscape has never been quite the same; that is to say, the nation has never recovered its nautical bearings. Lost, would be a common center that, with few exceptions, sought to achieve workable/practical compromises on issues of national importance. That both respective parties now seek to advance a quixotic, political ideal has occasioned irreparable divisions that must inevitably rend the social fabric of our nation.
• • •
While walking to the post office in the Woodlawn section of the Bronx the other day, I was struck by the quaintness of an old, working class neighborhood where generations of blue collar men and women married, raised (large) families in unpretentious homes, worked and played, lived and died. How ironic, it seems, that as American families continue to grow smaller, that many are moving into larger homes in upscale, ―sanitized‖ suburban ―neighborhoods‖ possessing less character and more property than most know what to do with for the sake of ―Quality of Life.‖
• • •
The Motion Picture industry has enjoyed a long running fetish with strong, physically intimidating women routinely beating up on or otherwise skillfully out-maneuvering the obnoxious designs of pretentious, self-centered males filled with a heightened sense of their (own) self-importance; convenient foils portrayed as anachronistic, insensitive, chauvinistic types deserving an occasional thrashing every so often from women scorned or in response to inopportune or unsolicited (sexual) banterings or harmless wisecracks intended to make a definitive statement about strong women coming of age. My ―favorite‖ staple is the one where a cloddish, brawny type is properly set down and summarily vanquished with relative ease by an unassuming ―cutie‖ ready, willing and able of taking on all comers who step out of line. This scenario has become all too formulaic and predictable. I believe that what we are witnessing represents the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Seldom seen, for example, are White Women beating the stuffing‘s out of Black Men.Such may still be considered taboo or perhaps implausible, even by Hollywood standards. Be that what it may, dumb, oafish White Males have become easier (political) targets for game women, whether they be Black or White.
That ―manly‖ specimens have seemingly fallen out in favor of ―strong,‖ sensitive Beta Types (where‘s John Wayne when you really need him?) is sending the wrong message to impressionable young women who easily buy into the notion that women are more than capable of holding their own against full-grown men twice their size. Neither does it improve matters by exposing the modern viewer to imaginary, trumped-up ―reality‖ survival programs pitting women, who are just as likely to cop the coveted prize, against men in feats requiring athleticism and strength. In the real world, it is men, if they may be properly called men, who are stalking and routinely beating up on defenseless spouses and girlfriends at an alarming rate. That these events are becoming more common in our increasingly dysfunctional society should serve as a wake-up call to un-discerning types who should otherwise reject Hollywood‘s kinky penchant for tough-ass, butt-kicking women that conveys nothing less than an improbable, transparent attempt at vicariously compensating ―emotionally‖ battered women by portraying them as super heroines. Such wishful thinking is merely a gratuitous bone tossed to distempered feminists to nourish their ―manly‖ aspirations.
• • •
I ran across a bumper sticker the other day that read: ―Testing does not equal Education.‖ This may be true. It may also be argued, however, that everything else being ―equal,‖ Testing is a fairly accurate measure of Learning.
• • •
Dignity is a human virtue that an individual is born with. It can not be manufactured or conditioned inasmuch as it is indigenous to individuals who naturally possess it. One does not properly refer to the Dignity of the Masses, other than in some abstract sense, because collective designs are unable to achieve loftier goals that are uniquely individualistic. This does not necessarily preclude, however, the potential for every individual to attain appropriate levels of honor and (self) esteem that sets the proper standards for others to follow; that is to say, lends character and dignity to that whole.
• • •
The Feminist Movement, as it started to evolve in European and American circles in the Nineteenth Century, unless I am misinterpreting historical events, did not seek the annihilation of traditional (gender) arrangements per se, but sought to establish a leveler playing field that accorded full social and political rights to women; that is to say, that allowed women to enjoy the same opportunities and privileges historically restricted to men; requesting neither more nor less than what was rightly considered their 136proper due. Women did not seek to exceed, however, what nature intended. Women sought, instead, an equal partnership with men without undermining the essential characteristics that typically separate men from women; each exceptional in his or her own peculiar manner. These women, with few exceptions, were not motivated by a universal agenda (extending beyond the immediate requirements for Equal Rights) that has subsequently evolved in modern times into a feminization of the male ego, leaving in its wake something that can best be described as a masculine identity that is less than manly, giving subsequent rise to artificial relationships lacking fixed points of (gender) reference.
• • •
Homosexuality, I believe, is the product of a diseased or troubled mind although not necessarily a depraved one, unless of course, an individual chooses to engage in sexual practices contrary to his or her ―natural‖ calling, in which case, such behavior should be considered properly deviant!
• • •
No individual is above the law but equal before the law, rather; that is to say, laws are not enacted for the private benefit of any one individual or group but conceived in a manner that seeks to promote equal protection for every citizen. Whenever laws are considered separately rather than collectively, however, each individual would be a law unto themselves.
• • •
One man‘s curse is another man‘s blessing!
• • •
Dear John-(John Melle)April 20th 2006You posed a question during dinner the other evening that I found rather disturbing from a Christian point of view. I would like to take this opportunity to elaborate further on some of the questions that were raised. You inquired whether I believed animals possessed souls and went to heaven. I believe that you are incorrectly assuming that possessing a soul provides an automatic passport to heaven.
Let‘s assume, for argument sake, that having a soul is a (necessary) requirement for any individual/animal to go to heaven. That same individual or animal could just as easily end up in hell (like my beloved ―Mitch,‖ for example) depending on how each has lived their lives in accordance with their own ―free will‖ that, in the case of animals, is a rather daunting proposition! In this context, everything being equal, both possibilities should be properly considered. I am speaking here of Rewards and Punishments.
I think we can both agree that a system of justice that exclusively applies rewards without pause for punishment cannot be properly referred to as a system of justice. It cannot even be considered arbitrary justice for that matter, inasmuch as it disclaims all notions of right and wrong or good and evil to begin with. This indifference to personal conduct places ―justice‖ in a moral vacuum. But enough of that. Moving on to the question of animals and heaven, I guess my question to you would be, whether an animal, having behaved
―wickedly‖ throughout his or her lifetime and having died without remorse for his or her dastardly misdeeds, should be considered a viable candidate for hell damnation? I raise this question for consistency sake. (I shudder at the very thought of an unrepentant Mitch, despite his innumerable failings, spending eternity in Hell.) However unpleasant the thought, I must allow that possibility as a counterpoise to heavenly rewards. That such arguments exceed the scope of my knowledge, I must leave such questions for theologians and religious scholars to decide. Let‘s allow for simplicity‘s sake, however, that heaven is a place that rewards ―good‖
behavior and hell a place reserved for ―evil.‖ Beyond that, far be it for me to judge who is good and who is evil.
Repentance and Remorse inform a troubled Conscience that seeks forgiveness. Conscience, I believe is the offspring of the Soul. It is arguably the most important faculty we possess as human beings in the manner it controls or directs behavior by giving pause to questions relating to right and wrong and good and evil, even when such distinctions are oftentimes unclear. I cannot properly imagine any animal, however, carried away by such distractions or driven to shame over some indecorous display like copulating in a public area, for example or urinating in someone‘s back yard. Any reasonable individual might properly argue that an animal, uninhibited by conventional customs, oftentimes does what comes naturally without regard to ceremony unlike higher orders of beings compelled by (religious) or social reasons that temper their (natural) inclinations. Animals are less inhibited than humans for good reason. They are unable to discount the probable effects of ―inconsequential‖ actions; that is to say, they do not ―think‖ in terms of right and wrong or good and evil. They simply ―behave‖ in a manner that comes natural to them. I am confident that animals do not go to heaven because they do not, cannot aspire for heaven. It is small consolation, however, for those of us emotionally attached to our pets, that although we may never be re-united with them in heaven, they will be spared an eternity in Hell.
It goes without saying that some of the most important decisions we make in our lives seldom rise above the level of the mundane, such as what clothes to wear, what to eat for dinner, what movie to watch and that our ultimate destinies are inevitably decided by loftier decisions. It may actually be a good thing that animals are unencumbered by such concerns, if indeed we, ourselves, properly worry as we should! We are ―divine‖ beings (as opposed to Divine), by virtue of our relationship with God whose greatest gift to Humankind is the prospect of eternal salvation. This sets us apart from the animal. An animal merely lives, rather than exists. (There is a real important distinction here!) An animal relies on instinct which should not be confused, however, with reasoning. Instinct is guided by self-preservation. Instinct is not self-guiding, however. Humankind is guided from within, that is to say, its actions are understood from within. It enjoys the capacity to ―Know Itself‖ which is the highest precept of Wisdom. An animal can never hope to aspire to Wisdom because such efforts imply a certain insight into the underpinnings of conscious designs, not merely their outward expressions but all that lies hidden and beyond. An animal ―learns‖ by Experience as do humans. Where they part company, however, 137
is in an animal‘s inability to properly apply Logic and Reason to what has been learned or to adapt itself to the social, moral and ethical requirements of learning. For an animal, ―learning‖ is an exercise in involuntary repetition. An animal is conditioned by rote to
―understand‖ the hows and whats but not the whys.
Your follow-up question, why do animals suffer in vain; that is to say, without heavenly hope, may be answered in this manner: 1) an animal does not hope because it lacks higher purpose and meaning. It may desire food to appease its hunger or shelter to protect it from the elements. It does not hope for such things, however, because it cannot think in terms of possibilities in the manner that hope necessarily implies Potential and Faith that keep us ―alive.‖ 2) An animal suffers for the same reason that humans suffer, because suffering is a part of life. It suffers in vain because, for reasons mentioned above, it is unable to aspire for hope. Suffering, properly understood, is a necessary requirement for Salvation. A proper distinction should be made between physical and spiritual suffering, the latter being the greater burden of the two. Why are we oftentimes inclined to assign blame to God for all our misfortunes yet seldom offer Him proper thanks for all His blessings?
I would like to conclude by saying that the mistreatment of any (defenseless) creature under our guardianship is a violation of God‘s sacred trust. We are all stewards of God‘s Creation; to treat kindly and with discretion, charity and compassion for our own useful purposes, without extracting any more or less than what is needed to secure our own material comfort. Such arrangements, however, need to be placed in their proper perspective. Investing both Man and Beast with (spiritual) qualities must necessarily elevate the
―moral‖ nature of the Beast while diminishing that of Man. In the proper ordering of things, God gave Man dominion over the Beast; that is to say, they are not co-partners in Nature. That Man was created in God‘s Image necessarily places Man on a spiritual plane unknown to Beast. Man is a contemplative being searching for Meaning and Redemption with the hope of bringing an individual closer to God. For this reason every individual must be held accountable for the choices that he or she makes. Man‘s immortality, I believe, is conditioned by thought. That Humankind enjoys a certain capacity to contemplate eternal designs represents (the) cornerstone of its (potential) immortality. Be wary of anthropomorphic designs, my friend.
With sincerity and affection,
Your friend,
Alipio
Saint Barnabas ChurchJune 5th 2006
409 East 241 Stre