|
|
Why a Church for Sceptics, Agnostics and Atheists
Reason: There have been a lot of studies recently about the positive health benefits of religion. People who attend regular church services, pray regularly, etc. seem to live longer happier healthier lives. They appear to have better immune systems, and just generally have a pretty good deal. A pragmatist would join a church on this evidence if true to pragmatic principles. The problem with the deal is that it requires the acceptance of beliefs that are offensive, rationally, logically or emotionally offensive to some people. Virtually all the above effects can be rationally attributed to the power of positive thinking, the placebo effect, and positive socialization. It is unfair, unjust, and discriminatory to deny these benefits to some because of their lack of theistic or spiritual religious beliefs. This being the case, someone should design a religion for skeptics, agnostics, atheists and any others who might wish to participate which will not incorporate these offensive doctrines. Mission statement, to design a religion which provides the opportunity to enjoy all the mental, emotional, social and physical benefits of religious activity without incorporating beliefs which are logically, rationally or emotionally offensive.
The
Bible of Civilization
Top
Beginnings: This process began in the back of my mind some months ago when I started reading a secular volume which reminded me in many ways of the bible. So let us begin the design process with a bible. What is a bible? To determine that let us look at the bibles of some of the major religions. Ancient Greece, the epics of Homer (history of the siege of Troy, and of Odysseus journey home), Judaism, The Torah and Talmud (history of the origins of their world and people with commentaries), Christianity, The Old and New Testament; in the Old Testament, histories with commentaries, in the New Testament history of the deeds and teachings of the founder. Islam, the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran; same with additional Prophet. The bibles of Hinduism are a combination of history, commentary, and magical formulary; Buddhism, history of the deeds and teachings of the founder; Confucianism, history of the teachings of the founder, with later commentaries by Mencius; Communism, comments on history by the founder.
Obviously, a bible is either a history book, a commentary on history by a teacher or interpreter, or a combination of the two. Which of these three forms is superior? The answer to that is another question, why are bibles Histories or wisdom derived from history? Possibly because one of the main social science functions of religion is to keep the lessons of history alive in the minds of each succeeding generation. Let us ask Darwin. Darwin maintained in the "Origin of Species" that societies underwent evolution as well. Suggesting that societies with superior behaviors would outcompete and conquer societies with inferior behaviors. The vector for transmission of this behavior is very possibly religion. When Darwin wrote, he did not know of genetics, the vector for the transmission of biological changes. Thus we hypothesize that religion is one of the main cultural vectors for transmitting superior social behaviors, the behavioral lessons of history.
So which is the superior form, the history book, the lessons of that history compiled by a great religious leader or philosopher or a combination of the two?
I would think it intuitively obvious that the combinatory form is superior to either. This is an idea that is supported by the fact that most of the bibles of the major religions are combinatory in form.
A history book is superior to a wisdom book, as it is the original source of the wisdom. As times change fresh lessons can be learned by studying the original source, while the wisdom book is set, and harder to derive fresh lessons from. The wisdom book or commentary is the work of a superior individual, and appropriate guidance derived from the history. As such it is a superior guide for most over the original source. Both together make the best solution to the question of what a bible should be.
So, in rationally designing a religion the bible should consist of history and commentaries. It falls now to select the Bible of our rationally designed religion. One might choose from a multitude of histories. The problem is that most history books are either ideological or boring. A history book written by a scholar to advance his ideological interpretation of history violates the mission statement of excluding required acceptance of offensive doctrines. Boring is something to be avoided as much as possible as people should read the bible. For the history part of the bible, the choice made is "The Story of Civilization" by the Durants.
Why this work?
Top
1) The name, ‘The Story of Civilization’ gives the religion a name; The Church of Civilization. This is a very good name. Obviously members of the Church of Civilization are civilized people. Their religion might be different, but it can’t be all that bad. Good initial impression on anyone who asks what religion you are.
2) The motive for writing, most history books are written by people out to prove something; scholars wanting to advance their theory of history. Political hacks wanting to justify communism, capitalism, or whatever. This volume was written by an aficionado; a person who just loved history. Now, books written with hate inspire hate, books written in anger inspire anger, a book written out of a passionate love of history will inspire a more positive feeling in its readers. It is a more pleasant and psychologically healthy book to read. While the personal beliefs of the Durants are apparent in the book they are not advanced as doctrine. The work includes personal stories and anecdotes about many notables of history that make it entertaining and interesting. Even a source for bedtime stories for children.
3) The size of the work; this is a very big work. 10 volumes each approaching 1000 pages in length. As such it incorporates interesting stories, deals realistically with the faults and virtues of many different peoples, and provides a real education to those who read it. A less comprehensive survey of history could only provide patterns and not cover the detailed stories that provide material for human sermons. It provides a huge resource for sermons, teaching, and thought. It requires some time and effort to read, though it is fun. A teacher in a religion must have some source for his authority. A minister for a church like the one being designed can hardly claim divine authority. He can claim expert authority. Reading "The Story of Civilization" gives him a very legitimate claim to expert authority over the average man in the street. In addition, it allows for some humorous one-upmanship. The Baptist minister and the Speaker of Civilization are talking. The speaker lays the Bible along side "The Story of Civilization" and asks, pointing to the Bible, "Is this your tool for seeking the truth?" The Baptist minister replies, "Well yes." The Speaker says, "You know, my tool is bigger than your tool".
4) The book is a little old. Volume 1 was finished in 1934, and contains some factual errors in the section on anthropology among others. As such these errors make for sermons on the subject that the bible of the Church of Civilization is not divine writ, nor is it the revealed truth, it has errors honestly admitted to.
5) The book contains a historian’s wisdom. Volume 1 written in 1934 predicts a war with Japan five years before it happened, demonstrating the value of the study of history.
6) It is widely available in second hand bookstores for a modest price.
7) In the later volumes it is a work of partnership between husband and wife, giving dignity to life partnership.
The second step in designing the bible is to select the commentaries. Now, collections of commentaries are less likely to introduce offensive doctrines because they include multiple viewpoints. For this choice I choose "The Great Books of the Western World". This is a set of selected works from ancient Greece to the modern day. It is something of a standard set. It is widely distributed, and widely available in second hand bookshops. The older version with the two-volume syntopicon and the great conversation is preferred. The bible of the Church of Civilization is now complete. It is a most impressive bible indeed. Some might point out that the GBWW includes great literature as well as commentaries and histories. This is true, but A) some classify the other bibles of the world as literature rather than history and B) great literature is great because it has something real to say (teach) about the human condition, so great literature is a highly appropriate part of any bible. Other books should be included in the commentaries as the scope of the GBWW is limited by some of its assumptions. I.E. it does not include great religious works unless they are also philosophy, and it does not include the great books of other cultures.
Reading
the Bible
Top
On reading the bible. There are twelve
months in the year. Sermons and teachings should come from a different
volume of history and associated commentaries each month. This is not a
hard and fast rule, but any author or current event relevant to the message
can be quoted in the sermon itself. This means that there is not
generally any necessity to break the rule to introduce relevant material.
January, volume 1, February, volume 2, March volume three, April to September,
volumes 4-11, this will be 1 and 1/3 volume a month, in October begin with
Volume 1 again. In December, volume 3, then in January start with volume
1 again. The first three volumes are probably the most useful. As they
lay out primitive man, origins of humanity, origins of civilization, ancient
Greece and Rome, and cover India and the Orient. Read the associated Great
Books from that period in history, in January and October the two months
for volume one read the classics of India, China and the rest of the world.
The Old Testament belongs with the Great Books of the period covered in
Volume 1 or 2. The New testament belongs with Volume 3. The fourth volume
details the rise of Islam, and mentions many of the classic philosophers
from Islam. Their works should be read then, even though not included in
the GBWW, and the Koran belongs here. Reading the great religious works
helps understanding the events of the past and the people of the present.
Reading the history of each period will make the Great Books more understandable
as the names and nations mentioned should be more real and less puzzling.
The first year one might read only the Story of Civilization, and then
reread it and read one or more Great Books from that period in later years.
Having just completed reading all 11 volumes I can confirm that this is
quite possible. Reading around 12 hours a week, I completed all 11 volumes
by the end of September, and read parts of the GBWW. I averaged 25 pages
in the Story of Civilization per hour. My reading speed is probably not
exceptional. Interestingly, 9 months is also the period of pregnancy, so
one can connect this reading of the Story with rebirth. Not a mystical
rebirth, but an intellectual rebirth as a person. On rereading the Story
of Civilization, certain parts may be skipped. The books split the text
into large and small, and some might choose to skip the small text on rereading
to refresh the picture of that period in history while reading the GBWW.
Others may choose to skip specific sections such as architecture or music
when reading to place the GBWW in historical context. Some of the later
commentaries and literature in the Great Books deals with events in the
earlier volumes. Much of Shakespeare is based on Plutarch’s Lives and later
histories and will be appropriate to different months of the year. A person
who has read "The Story of Civilization" should be considered a deacon.
A person who has read all of "The Story of Civilization" and the majority
of "The Great Books of the Western World" should be called a Speaker of
Civilization. Study of these matters is not complete without discussion.
Regular discussion of the history and associated great books should be
a part of the church activity. Persons whose opinions in these discussions
are highly regarded might be called Respected Speaker. When starting a
Church of Civilization it is unlikely that anyone will be a qualified Deacon
or Speaker. Start reading with one person acting as Deacon or trading the
job week to week. If this catches on, eventually Speakers may be trained
in Yeshiva like gatherings. There is no requirement to complete this course
of study to be a member of the church. However, reading the Story of Civilization
on a daily basis may have some positive health benefits. Spending an hour
or two every day doing some routine and pleasant task that promotes positive
attitude and thought is good for you, so daily reading of The Story of
Civilization is recommended. For others not willing to do this, some people
may just feel better getting moral and ethical advice from a Speaker of
Civilization than from some other minister of some other church. Though,
a reading room open in the church to those who wish to come and read when
time allows is recommended. A couple of sets of the Bible of Civilization,
and several stuffed chairs and a facility for getting coffee, tea or other
minor refreshments. It is interesting here to note an amusing coincidence.
The third volume of "The Story of Civilization" is "Caesar and Christ".
In the suggested order of reading one will study Rome in March, the month
of Mars, and the rise of Christianity in December, when Christmas occurs.
Of course, both will be read in each month, but the Speaker may choose
to emphasize accordingly. It is a peculiarly appropriate coincidence. Another
amusing coincidence is that the reading begins in January the month of
Janus the two faced god of portals in Ancient Rome. As Janus looked both
inside and outside the door of the home to guard it, so in January the
church studies look at man before and after civilization began. Doubtless,
in a century or two, it will be discovered that "The Story of Civilization"
contains "Bible Prophecies" using the mathematical methods that produced
those prophecies recently. One skeptic site has found such ‘prophecies’
in Moby Dick. More notes on the reading of Durant and the GBWW are
in the Calendar of Civilization.
A couple of more notes on reading the Bible. I am reading "The Life of Greece" for the third time. The first time I just read through, and did not try to comprehend every detail. The second time I read with attention to certain specifics. This time I am reading through with a book of historical maps showing the world in different periods and am able to locate all the places mentioned specifically. This slows down the reading as I am stopping every few paragraphs to locate a place and put it in its relevant location to other places and events, but it adds greatly to the understanding. Geography; rivers, ports, mountains, plains, swamps, etc. is important to understanding historical events. If you are like me and able to just accept the fact that a lot of places and people are strange and not worry about it and get the general drift, then you might just read through as I did the first time, and save later readings for more careful study. If you are bothered by such things you might read the first time through with a map and encyclopedia. Encyclopedias published prior to WWII had a great deal more classical information and biographies than modern ones do.
The GBWW divides into literature and plays, histories, philosophy, mathematics,
science, and medicine. The literature and plays may be read, or watched.
Plays were meant to be watched, and watching Shakespeare is a perfectly
acceptable substitute for reading him. Literature and plays are best
understood in the period that they were either written or describe.
So, each will have two legitimate periods in the year to be read or watched.
History and philosophy belong to the period when they were written or the
period they concern. Thus Gibbon can be read either during the Elizabethan
age or Rome. Math and science works serve as exercise for the mind
and may be studied at any time during the year. Medicine belongs
to its historical period and should be studied cautiously. One would
not want to practice the medicine of Hippocrates or Galen today.
You will find that Durant provides a thumbnail summary of all the authors
of the GBWW, and you will find that you do not always agree with
his assessment of them. This is one of the values of having the modern
historian and the original works to study.
The Creed
of Civilization
Top
From the discussion of bibles it is possible
to derive an addition to the mission statement of the Church of Civilization.
A religion which provides the opportunity to enjoy all the mental, emotional,
social and physical benefits of religious activity without incorporating
beliefs which are logically, rationally or emotionally offensive, and which
teaches its practitioners the lessons of history.
One more issue is of interest at this juncture. Separation of Church and State is the issue. This was instituted in the US to guard against the Church taking control of the State. The religious controversies at that time in history were sufficient to breed mistrust between members of different religions. It created a real separation of powers in society. The Church taught basic values, the State made laws. In the 20th century there have been some very bad cases where the Church was destroyed, and with it this separation of powers destroyed. In NAZI Germany, Hitler and his in-group intended on eventually replacing the existing religions with a state religion. In Soviet Russia, religion was basically outlawed. In Communist China 33 million Confucians were put to death in the Cultural Revolution. Any power that challenges the state is anathema to a totalitarian state. The moral authority of the Church is a challenge to the State. The Church teaches the Citizens to question the actions of the State. So demagogues and totalitarians destroy the power of existing Churches. One of the main functions of a nonsupernatural Church like the Church of Civilization is to act as a moral and ethical authority independent of the State, and thus help maintain separation of Church and State. As doubts of the existence of God increase, and the power of traditional religions to act as a check on the power of the state decreases, this role becomes more important. The American system was balanced on this separation of powers. The current weak status of the church with respect to the state would have not been anticipated by our founding fathers. Without it, the state becomes the church, and whatever political dogma is current becomes the religion of the land. This is Nazi Germany, Communist China, or fundamentalist Islam all over again.
If one studies the constitutions of Athens, Rome under the Republic, and England as it evolved, it is clear that complex structures with many counters to abuse of powers are the best safeguard of freedom. Dividing powers not combining them best guards freedom.
Looking at the mission statement, it dictates a number of statements about Church Doctrine.
It requires that the Church not incorporate offensive doctrines. This is something of an absolute statement, and of course cannot be accomplished perfectly. Something taught would offend someone. It is doubtful that Creationists will find the study of history pleasant or enjoyable. It is doubtful that literal word of God believers will find the study of history pleasant or enjoyable. History contains a few too many insights into the origins of the Christian Bible to be comfortable to some people. Atheism is offensive to agnostics, as many agnostics maintain that it takes a leap of faith to deny the existence of God as much as it takes one to accept Gods existence. These are all belief systems; Creationism, Literalism, Atheism. Each contradicts another belief system. How do you include all without excluding all? From this paradox the first two lines of the Creed of Civilization.
"The Church of Civilization does not endorse any supernatural beliefs.
The Church of Civilization does not deny any supernatural beliefs."
The Church of Civilization is agnostic on all supernatural questions. Buddha maintained that it was impossible to determine if a Creator God existed. The Church of Civilization imitates Buddha’s example, extending it to all supernatural beliefs; God, Soul, Reincarnation, Demons, etc. The purpose is to create a Church where all can participate regardless of their religious beliefs or lack of them. As far as the Church of Civilization is concerned, a Jew, a Muslim or a Catholic could all be Speakers of Civilization. No renunciation of other faith is required to participate in the Church of Civilization. No declaration of supernatural faith is required to participate in the Church of Civilization. In this the Church imitates Hinduism, which happily incorporates all other religions into their own worship. Buddha and Christ both have been incorporated into Hinduism as Gods. Instead of incorporating Gods, the Church of Civilization refuses to exclude persons. What is required is respect for others opinions. The Church of Civilization is not a place to condemn others supernatural beliefs, or to push your own supernatural beliefs on others. These are not the subjects of Church teachings, discussions, or sermons.
It is also supposed to be a religion teaches its practitioners the lessons of history. This gives the next three lines of the Creed of Civilization.
"We profess the importance of the Lessons of History."
"We profess the importance of the teachings of the Great Men of History."
"We desire to avoid repeating the mistakes
of the past."
The affirmation changes from what the Church does to what the individual does. The first two lines require no personal allegiance from the member. He can be atheist, deist, or whatever. The next lines include personal commitment to the ideas expressed.
It is also supposed to be a religion that provides the opportunity to enjoy all the mental, emotional, social and physical benefits of religious activity. This requires hypothesizing how religious activity stimulates health. It also requires imitating the methods of religion, which hypothetically stimulate health. It is worth noting that according to some studies, people who sit at home and watch televangelists do not receive any health benefits from their religious faith. Those who attend Church services with other people do. Thus, it is probable that the act of getting together in common purpose with others who accept you is one of the healthful aspects of religion.
"We believe in the importance of harmonious association with our fellows."
"We gather to practice harmonious association with our fellows."
Another very possible reason for the health benefits of religious practice is that religion reinforces positive thinking. Believing that some all-powerful God is going to help you get by is bound to help you be positive when things go badly. Positive thinking is faith; prayer focuses it. Setting aside time on a regular basis to promote a positive attitude is one of the main missions of the Church. The Skeptics Dictionary definition of placebo is at http://www.skepdic.com/placebo.html among other things some Doctors believe that the entire effect of drugs like Prozac is due to the placebo effect. While I consider this and some other positions taken by hard line skeptics extreme, it does demonstrate the power of positive thinking. The Skeptical Inquirer has a page on the placebo effect at http://www.csicop.org/si/9701/placebo.html more of the same.
"We believe in the power of positive thinking."
"We profess the power of prayer."
"We have faith in the power of faith."
This aspect of harmonious association and promoting a positive attitude also relates to the agnosticism of the Church. Religious arguments are rarely harmonious and rarely positive. A person attempting to press their belief or nonbelief in God onto other Church members should be gently but firmly reminded that "We gather to practice harmonious association with our fellows" and that while practice does not imply perfection he needs to practice harder.
Darwin’s idea of cultural evolution implies lessons in history that may not be apparent to reason. Let us take an example from the Bible. It includes a clear description of digging a cathole to bury human feces by troops on the march. This is a good sanitary practice, followed by troops in the field today. It could not be scientifically explained in Biblical times. Traditional wisdom contains laws and rules, which experience has shown to be good, but which cannot be explained rationally. This is behavioral wisdom, acquired by cultural evolution. Such traditional wisdom is part of the conservative inheritance of moral teachings of religion. Its existence should be respected. Frequently a culture no more understands how its traditions maintain its existence than a cell understands the process of osmosis by which it survives. Thus, the fact that a rule or value is not easily understood does not render it valueless or mean it should changed.
"We maintain and support those traditional values which are necessary to a civil society."
This covers the issue with a statement broad enough that everyone should be able to accept it. It establishes the point that some traditional values are good, even if not understood. Faddish change to social standards is bad. It leaves the area open for argument, hopefully intelligent argument based on "The Story of Civilization" and "The Great Books of the Western World". These lines together establish the Church of Civilization as a religion, which serves the same social, personal, and cultural purposes as other religions. Of course, it does not pretend to point the way to personal salvation, but many claim that Judaism has no belief in the afterlife or next life either. It is in all things comparable to major and important religions of the world.
This is the Creed of Civilization, nice name, eh?
"The Church of Civilization does not endorse any supernatural beliefs."
"The Church of Civilization does not deny any supernatural beliefs."
"We profess the importance of the Lessons of History."
"We profess the importance of the teachings of the Great Men of History."
"We desire to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past."
"We believe in the importance of harmonious association with our fellows."
"We gather to practice harmonious association with our fellows."
"We believe in the power of positive thinking."
"We profess the power of prayer."
"We have faith in the power of faith."
"We maintain and support those traditional values which are necessary to a civil society."
Below is some discussion of traditional religious values. These are the opinions of the author of this document, not divine revelation.
Traditional Values
Top
The Golden Rule
This is a good place to talk about human social instincts and how they interact. After long arguments on the topic of ethics with my taking the Darwinian Natural Law side, I have concluded that for general discussion there are three such instincts. They are pecking order behavior, the territorial imperative, and reciprocity. The most important of these is reciprocity. It is expressed as the golden rule, "do not do unto others what you would not have done to you". It is sometimes presented as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". The second version is practically speaking inferior to the first. When Rabbi Hillel was asked to sum up his religion in a sentence, he gave the first version to the Roman Centurion who asked him. Confucius (Kung Fu Tze) also gave the first version according to Durant. The difference is an important one. The first version prevents you from invading another persons life or space, do not. The second version licenses you to invade another persons life or space (do) if you imagine that you would like someone to do the same for you. The first version is much more practical and less dangerous than the second version. There is no guarantee that what you imagine you would want done is either what the other person wants or would actually be what you want if you were really in his shoes. The second version should be considered as applicable only to really, really good friends and then cautiously. The 'dark' side of the golden rule is, "do unto others as they do unto you". Aristotle and Confucious would support this, but limit it to just and proportional desserts, as would the Old Testament, Jesus set a higher standard practical for saints, superior in some instances for individuals, but impractical for states and law enforcement. Justice is the punitive expression of the Golden Rule or reciprocity. Justice without retribution is not justice and will not satisfy the instinctive needs of the people.
Another application of this principle of the two golden rules the superior and the inferior applies to lawmaking. Laws that say do not do unto others, i.e. laws against theft, murder, rape, assault, are wise laws. Laws which invade other peoples space to tell them how to live for their own good. Laws against drugs, alcohol, homosexuality, other religions, etc. assume a license to invade other peoples personal lives to tell them how to live. These laws are generally historically unwise and they violate one of the other three fundamental human social instincts. This violation of a fundamental human instinct means that people will instinctively disregard such laws as unjust.
The instinct that these laws violate is the territorial imperative. People all feel that they have a certain territory. A right to rule there. Their personal life is generally felt to belong to them. Violate that territorial imperative with a 'moral' law and you create a law which people feel a duty to disobey, simply to assert their dignity as human beings. The territorial imperative is a very important instinct, as it establishes the instinctive, emotional base for the doctrine of natural rights. Natural rights gives everyone a territory that it is just wrong to violate. This resonates with the subconscious and makes the concept strong. The concept is strongest in societies where real territories exist. Thus Aristotle noting that farming communities where each citizen owned his own land, were the second best population for a free republic or state. He rated nomadic peoples as the best, this is sometimes true or false. Nomads own their horses and homes and can leave any laws they disagree with. But they frequently develop into autocratic systems. You should read John Stuart Mills, "On Liberty" for a good dissertation about peoples right to a personal sovereignty over their own lives. It is in the GBWW.
If 'moral' laws violate the territorial imperative and represent an inferior and dangerous version of reciprocity, how are they emotionally appealing enough to get passed. The answer is in the third instinct, pecking order behavior. Every family and tribal group has a dominant male, and he can do anything he wants. This also resonates strongly with human instinct and feeling. There is a natural tendency to try to get this dominant male to force others to do what you think is right. This tendency may be stronger in the female than the male. The behavior of chimpanzees would suggest so. The state takes the place of the dominant male, and those who wish to do so seek to convince the state to regulate the behavior of others according to their wishes. This behavior, playing up to the dominant male to acquire power to dictate to others is pretty much the opposite of real democracy and republican institutions, but it is invariably exercised for the 'good' of the people. Since these laws are supported by one fundamental instinct and violate another fundamental instinct, they are always the source of trouble and generally fail. People simply will not obey laws like this unless they are enforced with a level of force destructive of personal freedom. People will obey laws that make sense in terms of reciprocity, i.e. we all treat each other the same by stopping at red lights and driving when it is green. They will obey laws that make sense in terms of the territorial imperative, i.e. a man's home is his castle. Laws based on pecking order behavior will not be obeyed unless a dominant male or equivalent is constantly flexing his muscles and enforcing them.
Pecking order behavior gives us caste systems, slavery, aristocracy, class systems, and tyrannies. It is the emotional/instinctual opposite of real liberty and freedom. Still, it is an important part of the social fabric, necessary in combat units, and organizational structures. It is just dangerous when people think that the state should act like a dominant male.
The kicker to the golden rule is, if you do something to someone else, you give them a moral, i.e. instinctive emotional license recognized by everyone else instinctively, to do the same to you. Hit someone and you are fair game to be hit, etc. Turnabout is fair play. Societies have all sorts of different levels of fair play. Torture, murder, theft, deceit, etc. have all been considered fair play in one society or another. The universal rule though is, if it is fair for person a to do it to person b, then it is fair for person b to do it to person a. Unless person a is higher in the pecking order, then it is fair for person b to do it to persons c, d, and e, who are below him in the pecking order. So, if in a society of equals, your actions license others to treat you the same way. If a leader, your actions to subordinates license them to treat their subordinates the same way. In either case you must rule your own actions or suffer the consequences of unwise action. Cheap shots may seem clever in the short term, but in the long term they are unwise.
It is important to realize the rules of fair play in the group you are with. Cheating at cards may be accepted until caught. If so, others will not object to someone cheating you, you are a mark until you catch on. In such cases it is alright to cheat them, as they would have done the same to you. No real hard feelings will exist, as it is a fair contest of strength, in this case cleverness, played by the generally accepted rules.
Sound complicated. Human society is. Still, the golden rule can help you to live a good life. If you consistently treat others by a high standard of fairness and ethics they will eventually feel that it is unfair to treat you differently. Thus, it is wrong to shoot medical personnel, as they are there to give aid not shoot others. It feels wrong and unjust.
Life is easier for everyone the higher the standard of ethics observed. So, set a high standard of honesty and fairness for yourself.
Slavery, Class and Caste Systems
Top
Pecking order behavior establishes a strong instinctive emotional base
for slavery, class and caste systems. After all, in nature someone
is always the boss. If you mess with the boss in nature he will bite
your head off, sometimes literally. So, this behavior prepares human
beings to accept these institutions as a part of their society. Virtually
every society in human history has had a variation of these institutions.
The problem is, as we look at the world today, we find blessed few slave and caste systems surviving in competition with systems where personal and market freedom are protected. Certainly none are doing as well, or acting with the efficiency and strength of a free system.
If slavery is so dad-gum natural, then why do non slave systems outperform and outcompete slave and authoritarian systems?
Let us compare the two systems on a couple of points. In nature the boss wins his place by ability and anyone who wants to is free without legal hindrance to challenge him for the top spot at any time.
In slavery the boss inherits his position or gets it otherwise and makes darn sure by various legal safeguards that if a slave challenges him the slave will suffer for it.
Hmmm, there seems to be a minor differene here. In nature the boss is boss because of ability the subordinate subordinate according to ability. In slave and caste systems the boss is boss because of social factors and the slaves ability is irrelevant and frequently wasted in a position where his talents cannot benefit him or society.
You see, slavery is not natural. The laws limiting lower class people, lower caste people, and slaves from challenging for a higher position in the pecking order do not exist in nature.
They suppress talent and ability and prevent people from contributing as much to society as they otherwise could. Since the talented cannot contribute to society in proportion to their talent, the talents of the population as a whole are underutilized compared to free systems, and slave systems are inferior to free systems in competition.
There is a caveat here. Discipline defeats chaos. Romans while free in many senses were far more disciplined than the barbarians they fought who were freer in some senses. Romans kicked their butt repeatedly despite monster odds against them. You need that old pecking order behavior some of the time, never forget that.
Another problem with slavery and subsistence workers has to do more with economics than natural law. A free market economy requires a market. The larger the market, the more vital the economy the smaller the market the more delicate the economy. For the most viable economy, you need 100% of the population to be able to participate as consumers. Slaves and subsistence workers cannot do this and thus weaken the economy. Pay them more and the money will pass through their hands right back into the hands of the producers, but the overall money flow will be greater fueling more innovation and invention and increasing the rate of creation of real wealth. Slavery and subsistence workers are a disadvantage economically and hinder a society's ability to create new wealth.
Marriage
Top
Generalizations about human nature, as
all generalizations will meet with exceptions, nonetheless, such generalizations
are possible with some accuracy.
Humans are not naturally monogamous, they are naturally matrilineal. I.E. human families like elephants and mice are naturally centered around the female line and members of the family tend to only have temporary relations outside that line to reproduce.
This is fairly well established,
Durant reaches this basic conclusion in Vol 1 of "The Story of Civilization".
Many tribal peoples in America were matrilinear and the adult male role
model was supplied by the Uncle and not the Father. Montesquieu in
"The Spirit of the Laws" notes that nephews were preferred as hostages
among the Germanic tribes over sons, as the tie of an Uncle to a Nephew
was stronger than that of a Father to a Son. In Egypt, property and
social rank descended from mother to
daughter, and brother consistently married
sister so the male could keep the inheritance. Apparently sisters
found this entirely acceptable.
Women, following their instincts or feelings do not mate for life. The idea of their doing so is artificial, a creation of more complex societies where accumulated property and economic issues made it necessary. It has evolved virtuallly universally in most relatively advanced societies.
Women, following their instincts or feelings
are not the least inclined to be faithful to a single man. This has
been established by
scientific studies that show that women,
leaving their boyfriend and going out alone experience an increase in libido
and sexual interest.
Another scientific study took tee shirts
carrying the scents of various people and had women smell them. The
attractiveness of the scent was related to two variables, the closeness
of the scent in genes which determine resistance to disease, and the pregnancy
or not pregnancy of the woman. Women found the scents of outgroup
males attractive when not
pregnant and unpleasant when pleasant.
Showing that the natural tendency of a woman, once pregnant, is to return
to the matrilineal group.
Society has evolved a lot of methods of maintaining marriage despite the fact that women are not really naturally inclined to it. The purdah or seclusion of women common in Ancient Greece, India, and Islam is one example. Various examples can be found among African tribes, and of course personal behaviors play a role.
Where society does not seclude the woman, an artificial seclusion maintained by the male is a logical natural evolution. The behavior a man attempting to impress a woman with how worthless she was so she would feel dependent and unable to leave him seems common. While in the Navy a lot of the couples I met seemed to display variants of this behavior. It is so common that likening it to possibly mortal physical abuse seems improbable.
What is right? Is marriage wrong because it is not really a natural human behavior? Does marriage injure women? Would the world be a better place if marriage were abolished?
In a natural tribal society, subsistence survival is the business of the day. These are dirt poor desperate societies at the mercy of nature. The matrilineal group is sufficient, no responsibility for the welfare of his own children exists for the man. The Uncle assumes this role and provides the minimal support that males supply in such societies. In hunter gatherer societies 70% of sustenance is supplied by the women who are perfectly capable of getting by without men except for their warrior and sperm donor functions.
As progress is made and wealth is accumulated questions of economic responsibility expand in importance. A man who works to support a child wants to ensure that it is his.
The Uncle is less likely to be willing to support his sisters children, and the husband insists on being sure that his children are supported.
To recreate a natural society we would have to change the rules, have Uncles assume the financial and personal responsibility for their sisters children that husbands now bear. Would that be fair?
Today, liberated women want the best of both worlds, they want the freedom to act on their feelings which lead them to dump men periodically, but they still want the man to assume the same financial responsibility for their children as though they were still living together. Is that fair?
Now as previously mentioned, women do not naturally form lasting relationships with men. Yet marriage has evolved in virtually all relatively complex societies. This provides a logical contradiction. If it is unnatural it should injure not strengthen a society and an institution that injures a society should prevent that society from competing successfully with other societies. So, on the face of it, the widespread existence of marriage is a logical contradiction.
So, let me analyze this. What is
more natural, for the woman to abandon her children for 8 to 16 hours a
day and go to work in a factory or an office, or for a woman to remain
at home and take care of her children. Which state comes closer to duplicating
a natural environment conducive to natural behaviors for the woman and
natural development for the
children?
Clearly marriage, though artificial approaches the natural state more closely. Logical conundrum solved. Because our modern system of employment is even more artificial than marriage, marriage provides a solution to the womans needs for support and ability to rear her children superior to single parenthood.
Satisfying nature is a part of the way to a happy and fulfilling life, regardless of what propaganda about 'womens' rights may say. A lot of women are pretty commonsensical about this, as surveys have shown. 67% of women in one survey would prefer to be stay at home moms if they had the chance. Women were a part of the workforce since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Suffragettes fought for a family wage, a wage large enough to allow the woman to stay home and raise her children without having to get a job, as well as the right to vote. Getting women out of the workforce and back into a more natural home environment was a triumph of womens liberation. Getting them back into the workforce was a triumph of ignorance of history.
It is clear that the majority of women would be happier as stay at home moms in a secure marriage. It is also clear that a large minority of women will be happier in the workforce. How to solve this is not clear.
Marriage does a number of things for women.
1) it supplies them with a man who works to support them. Liberated
women today are dying younger and more often of stress related diseases
than their mothers because of their role in the workforce. 2) It provides
s secure environment for their children. 3) It protects them from the danger
involved in constantly seeking new strange males for companionship. 4)
It reduces the rate of rape, as it reduces the assumption that any female
outside
her matrilineal kinship group is looking
for sex. 5) it reduces the rate of violence in society in general by stabilizing
males who are no longer out there looking for sex.
All of this comes at a price, women controlling their own feelings and instincts and settling for a man who is basically going to be less than perfect.
Liberated women do not believe that this price is worth paying. They believe in fantasies, and have no idea of the realities that marriage helps to protect them from.
Like people who want to revise or annul the Bill of Rights because they do not know what it protects them from, Liberated Women want to mindlessly abolish or change time tested institutions because they do not understand what benefits they confer, they look only at the sacrifices involved in maintaining them.
Marriage is not to be undertaken lightly. Most churches will not marry a couple until they have spent several weeks or several months discussing what marriage is about and realistically facing up to the problems and burdens of marriage. In ancient Israel, Rabbis held that a couple were not married unless the Ketubot (marriage contract) was signed and finished. In Rome, the father had absolute power to slay any member of his family at any time. His wife, his sons, his slaves, it made no difference. His power was absolute. Yet, in the marriage ceremony, he placed his head in a yoke alongside his wife’s showing that they shared the burdens of wedlock together.
The Church of Civilization should insist upon would be couples discussing marriage and its challenges. It should suggest a marriage contract modeled after the Ketubot. Most important, it should hold up the example of the Roman Husband bowing and bearing the yoke alongside his wife as the model of both partners in a marriage. Both should emulate the Roman Husband, who though gifted with the power of life and death, still bowed and accepted the yoke alongside his wife as symbol of matrimony. No real dignity accrues to those who shirk their proper duties.
Conjugal duties have always been a part of marriage. They should be discussed and accepted by those getting married in the Church of Civilization. Using sex as a weapon in marriage is like using nukes to settle a border dispute. It makes both partners miserable. Sex is a physical need. Women who deny their husbands sex for minor reasons will not satisfy this need. This will make them unhappy, and being unhappy they will punish their husbands by denying them sex. This will make them more unhappy. Physiologically, the burden of sexual performance rests on the male. The male’s ability to perform is not as reliable or controllable as the females. When the male is ready to perform the female should take advantage of the opportunity. A female who denies her husband sex when he is ready to perform and attempts to get it when he is unready will be sexually frustrated. The psychological burden of saying yes when unprepared falls on the female as the physiological burden rests on the male. Sex should not be considered a legitimate weapon for use in spousal disputes, and therefore both parties should accept conjugal duties. A dutiful wife can never be raped, as she would never deny her husband sex. Marital rape becomes a null question in a healthy marriage. A person who believes that marital rape is a valid question is a person unprepared to get married. Marriage involves a commitment to live with, and work to satisfy the needs of another person. Persons who are not willing to accept conjugal duties are obviously not ready to make the serious personal commitment involved in marriage. Tell them to live together, or whatever, until they are willing to make a commitment, or not. Marriage is not marriage without conjugal duties. The issue of conjugal duties should be considered an acid test of the couple’s actual willingness to make the commitment required in a marriage.
Promiscuity
Top
It is obvious to everyone today that promiscuity
is a health hazard. It has always been a health hazard. Promiscuity provides
a hospitable environment for STDs. This means that promiscuous societies
have more of a problem with STDs than societies that are not promiscuous.
In terms of health promiscuity is not a good idea.
Promiscuity works for men. A mans value does not change if he goes to bed with one woman or with a thousand women. In fact, the more women who want him, the more desirable he may seem. Look at Captain Kirk. For women the equation is different. Babylon was a society where every woman was required to have sex in the temple for pay at least once in their lives. Herodotus says that never was a society better organized for pleasure. Herodotus also tells us that when Babylon was under siege, the husbands strangled their wives, in order to save food. Some might suggest that the women, inflamed with patriotic fervor, asked to be killed in order to aid the defense. It seems more likely that in a society where sex in every form was commonly available from a hundred sources, the value of women, and of wives, was not great.
There is also the question of how much emotional investment a man can make in a woman. If the woman is promiscuous it is likely that she will dump him eventually. A society where men are routinely dumped by women will be a society in which men cannot afford to make a deep emotional commitment to a woman. Love, life partnership, marital love, simply cannot exist widely or commonly in a promiscuous society. This only applies to a society where promiscuity occurs after marriage. Many societies allow promiscuity prior to marriage and faithfulness afterward.
In the military it has been found that when a tank or other equipment is held in common, no one does the maintenance. When it belongs to a crew, or a person, that crew or person takes pride in it, and takes care of it in a manner to reflect that pride.
If you want someone to take care of you with loving pride you have to belong to that person. Promiscuity is a bad idea. It is bad in terms of health, and in terms of personal relationships.
Filial Piety
Top
One of the fundamental building blocks
of most ancient civilizations was filial piety. The respect of children
for their parents was emphasized in Rome, Greece, China, and in the Ten
Commandments. Children grow up to mirror their parents. If a child sees
his parents disrespecting their parents, chances are when he is old he
will disrespect his parents, in imitation of what he learned as a child.
Like father, like son. It is in the interest of the individual to practice
filial piety, and to encourage it in his children.
Is there any reason why parents should be required to provide support to their children, and children not equally required to provide that support to their parents when old and in need of it? If the laws in this area did not discriminate against the elderly, deadbeat kids would be as big a legal issue as deadbeat dads.
On the other hand, there is birth control. If children are legally seen as a safeguard to care in old age, it will encourage people to have as many children as possible. This is what happened in China. If this attitude is discouraged, and the state provides old age care, then prosperity will destroy the desire for children as it provides more and more diversions for those who might otherwise have become parents. Another point is that no one can afford to provide unlimited medical care. People can be kept alive far past any real being alive. The old must at one point or another be allowed the right to die.
This is an interesting question, and one, which requires much thought. On the balance, though, filial piety is one of the traditional building blocks of civilization. Let me repeat part of the beginning. Children grow up to mirror their parents. If a child sees his parents disrespecting their parents, chances are when he is old he will disrespect his parents, in imitation of what he learned as a child. Like father, like son. It is in the interest of the individual to practice filial piety, and to encourage it in his children. This is another example of the Golden Rule in action. Save that you are doing to others, your parents, as you would have your children do to you. In personal relationships, the positive golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is quite possibly superior to the negative. Do not do unto others. There are two arenas of action here, law and the state and the personal life. Set a good example for your children in how you treat your parents, and insist that they respect your spouse. Do not let them play one parent against another.
Charity
Top
Charity seems to be a natural human instinct.
This appears from the fact that a majority of primitive peoples practice
charity even communistic sharing of goods to one degree or another.
For hunter gatherers, this makes sense. You get lucky today and share
with your neighbor your excess, he gets lucky tomorrow and shares with
you his excess. You have no real means of storing up excess anyway.
Civilization changed all that. The charitable impulse remained, but
so did the impulse to acquire, the need for power, and the ability to accumulate
vast wealth and authority. It is common to speak of the abuse of
greed and power, but it is not common to realize that the Charitable impulse
has been as systematically abused as these. Charity has been the
root of many of the greatest evils in the history of Civilization.
This is not because Charity is bad, it is because the way that Charity
is encouraged and practiced is unnatural and wrong. In nature, you
give Charity freely, not expecting that specific person to return that
specific amount to you in the future, but confidently expecting that when
you are in need others will share with you as you have shared in the past.
This practice survives commonly in many instances today. Your car breaks down and someone else stops, gives you help and refuses payment only requesting that you pass the favor along someday. This is a fine and decent behavior. It is one that should be honored and encouraged.
Still, this is not generally the way that charity is practiced in complex societies. Accumulations of wealth and power become so great that those who receive can never pay back. Charity becomes a one way action. It takes from the wealthy and insults the poor demeaning them as helpless dependents. The wealthy resent and try to oppress, the poor resent and demand more. State or Statelike institutions arise systematizing the distribution of charity as a right. A dependent class good for nothing but rioting in the streets becomes an ever growing burden on the state. Bread and Circuses become the major component of state policy.
Or, Charity is encouraged in other ways, the beggars become professionals, they delight in their cunning in defrauding the simple marks who give to them. They add theft to their bag of tricks, and again society is split into warring camps.
Systematic Charity is a great problem. People desperate and starving are a much greater and more immediate problem. The simple solution, a mistake much repeated in history to to make mistake one to avoid problem two.
A better system is to look at Charity in nature and realize that it was always meant to include the promise that the person who receives charity will return it. Not necessarily to the giver, but to another person when the opportunity arises. If the state must support a portion of the populace, that support should be contingent upon their spending the time they would normally spend working preparing to aid their fellow citizens. This uses the charitable impulse wisely.
As an individual it is better to give than to receive as explained in the Affirmation of Faith, and giving to charitable organizations of a persons choice is encouraged.
Signs
of Civilization
Top
Every church requires an emblem. The Church
of Civilization emblem may vary, but this document should at least propose
one. C O (f inside the O) (C reversed). This could be drawn in a number
of ways; the two C’s striking upwards like the wings of an angel, the C’s
larger than the O, the f inside the O drawn to look vaguely like a cross.
The variations are probably endless.
Hand actions activate parts of the brain not used by the voice. Learning with hands on training has advantages over book learning. Moving your hands when doing something gives it greater psychological impact. It is possible that the action of making the sign of the Cross or other similar actions in religious ceremonies increases their placebo effect by engaging more of the brain in the actions. In imitation of this the Church of Civilization should have a hand gesture to make like the Cross. Looking at the two C’s and tracing them in the air produces a horizontal figure 8. A horizontal figure 8 is the mathematical symbol for infinity. So, this makes a nice piece of serendipity. The infinity symbol becomes the cross of the Church of Civilization. This is meant for the hand sign, and does not totally replace the C O (f inside the O) (C reversed) that was the start and is quite appropriate for banners and other graphic emblems.
It is interesting or, dare I say it, titillating, to think of female members wearing T-shirts with the C Of reversed C on the chest.
The symbol of infinity, drawn as two C’s one reversed connected by glowing lines might be another very nice symbol of the Church of Civilization.
Stations of Civilization
In another of those interesting coincidences that have typified my
work on this document, there are implicitly 14 stages or stations in the
Calendar of Civilization. The first 9 months see 11 volumes, then
the first three volumes are used over, making a total of 14. Catholicism
has 14 stations of the cross, and you will sometimes see them illustrated
on the walls of Catholic Churches. This was unintentional, but it
does provide a theme for decorating a Church of Civilization. Though
choosing which subject from each volume to be illustrated in turn would
make for a fascinating choice, and will lead to some variation between
churches.
It is worth noting that the absence of ornament can speak as plainly to the heart as its presence. Simplicity can be as powerful as complexity. It depends on the individual and the congregation.
The
Calendar of Civilization
Top
Sermonology a
collection of notes in another html document listing suggestions for sermons
in chronological order as you proceed through the year and the Stations
of Civiliation
January
February
Valentine's (Penelope's) Day
The Feast of the Chestnut Mare
March
April
May
Tolerance Day
June
July
Independence Day
August
September
Labor Day
October
Columbus Day
Halloween
November
Archimedes Day
December
Christmas
The order of reading each volume and teaching the weekly lesson or sermon from the appropriate order will give a certain character to each month. As a general rule, the subject of each volume may suggest changes in Church decor and costume, giving flavor and meaning to each month as it passes. This regularity of the seasons, and the sense of order and reassurance it brings is one of the noted benefits of religion for many persons. Reading may be considered to include viewing when it comes to plays. The Church may want to show movies once a week in order with the Calendar to illuminate events as they occurred. Showing Shakespeares plays about Greece and Rome when reading about Greece and Rome, "Romeo and Juliet" and "The Merchant of Venice" would occur during 'The Age of Faith' or possibly 'The Renaissance". A brief discussion of the source that Shakespeare used for the tales, the historical events of the period concerned, and any glaring innaccuracies might be appropriate, then serve the popcorn and roll the film. Such a movie night is not necessarily limited to film versions of the GBWW. The Three Musketeers could be played during 'The Age of Louis the Fourteenth" or "The Age of Voltaire". Dinosaur films could be played in the first week of January or so, etc. Have fun.
Top Calendar
January will have
a lot of variety. It is the oldest volume, and thus probably is the most
at variance with modern opinion. This is not necessarily a bad thing as
a lot of modern opinion is highly questionable. Still, it will have factual
errors. These should be pointed out as a lesson in humility, in understanding
the limits of our understanding, and thus in treating others who disagree
with us with respect. Tolerance on the basis of the limits of human understanding.
It emphasizes the difference between the Church of Civilization and other
religions, as the Church does not claim divine revelation, or infallibility.
As it looks at people in primitive societies, lessons about the basics
of human impulse and nature are appropriate. October is the same volume.
Because it covers the transition from tribal man to civilized man, it is
a good month for the Affirmation of Responsibility discussed later. But
so is the birthdate of the person undergoing the Affirmation. The covering
of Ancient Civilizations, Egypt, Japan, India China, etc. during this month
will give it a special flavor and feel. This volume is also appropriate
for the Affirmation of Welcome for adult members joining the Church. This
part of the year should focus on the transition from uncivilized to civilized
societies. October should focus on the contributions of other cultures
like China to world civilization.
Top Calendar
February covers
classical Greece and Old Testament Israel. Ethics, politics, and the origins
of much of our society today. Great Books for February include GBWW volumes
4) Homer, 5) The Greek Playwrights, 6) Herodotus and Thucydides, 7) Plato,
8&9) Aristotle, and 10) Hippocrates and Galen. Volume 11 is Euclid,
Archimedes, Appollonius and Nichomachus. These are mathematical works to
be studied all year around by those interested in sharpening their minds.
Volume 14 is Plutarch’s Lives, and while he lived under Rome he was Greek,
and his biographies cover persons from volumes 2 and 3 of Durant. Ergo
he is useful in february, march, november and december. The Old Testament
is appropriate for this month as well.
Top Calendar
Valentine's (Penelope's) Day
Penelope was the wife of Odysseus called Ullyses in latin. While
he was lost for years trying to return from the siege of Troy, she remained
faithful to him. Though beset with suitors who tried to make her
forsake him she refused. The legend is that she told them she would
choose a new husband after finishing the tapestry she was working on.
She would work on it during the day, and unravel her work by night to keep
from having to choose. A nice story for Valentine's Day. This
was the first holiday I set in place, and the rest of the calendar was
unplanned, but coming as it does here, it resonates well with the rest
of the Calendar. Keeping the seasonal emphasis of the rest of the
calendar, Penelope is the earth, Odysseus the sun, and his absence the
winter. Penelope is in the winter of her life, i.e. a period of desperation
and depression. Beset by problems, the suitors, she keeps the faith
that her husband will return. In this sense, Penelope is, EveryPerson
in the dark winter of their lives. Her winter begins with a single
problem, her husbands absence, but soon, as it seems to happen to most
of us her problems multiply, as symbolized by the horde of suitors.
Her hopes seem slim, likely to be destroyed by her problems, even as the
suitors plan on killing her son. Then Odysseus returns, the suitors
are slain, as are the fair weather friends, the maids who partied with
the suitors, and all turns out (rather gorily) well. A nice tale
of faith rewarded.
Fasting periods are again a constant in most religions. As noted in the Affirmation of Right Desire, fasting is a technique of taking control of oneself, such control leads to a greater sense of control of ones life. Fasting has also been shown to lengthen average life spans. The question is, should the Church mandate a fast, or leave the technique just under the Affirmation of Right Desire as totally voluntary? Or should the Church suggest a fast but not mandate it?
This position in the calendar seems like a good one holiday wise. 1) It comes between Penelope's day and the festival of the Chestnut Mare. In Penelope's day we have a reminder of the need of keeping faith when in the winter of our lives, and in The Festival of the Chestnut Mare we celebrate the beginning of the end of humanity's winter of superstition with the end of human sacrifice as reason triumphs over superstition. The Fast ends in Feast. It gives a symbolic meaning to what is otherwise just an exercise in self control. It also provides a period when a lot of Church members will be doing the same thing and thus be able to support each other. Fasting is a good symbol of the deprivation of winter and fits right in here. It also relates to Thanskgiving, when we give thanks for what reason and science have provided. A fast here, in the last part of winter reminds us that before agriculture and food storage, primitive man could easily starve at this time of year. It is a way of remembering how reason and science have made life better for humanity.
On the other hand. Days are short, the weather is cold and fasting could reinforce depression. Fattier foods might be helpful in providing calories to warm the body. These are good reasons not to make the fast mandatory.
There are many varieties of fast. Not eating during daylight as in Ramadan, not eating meat as in Lent, etc. Any of these might well serve the purpose, and quite possibly, the choice of fast should be as individual as the choice of whether or not to fast. I think this should be seen as a window of opportunity to subordinate ones normal passions and behaviors to ones will, but that the choice of exactly how to do so should be individual. Of course, a fast following the traditional American calorie binge during the holidays is probably a good idea.
Top Calendar
The Feast of the
Chestnut Mare
(Sadly, as this holiday
celebrates the triumph of reason over human superstition in the end of
human sacrifice, it is inevitable that some silly people will take this
as an attack on Christianity, an attempt to invalidate Jesus sacrifice
on the Cross. While the Church does not affirm Jesus as Son of God,
or salvation through his sacrifice, this holiday has nothing to do with
that. If you accept Jesus, consider this. It was not God who demanded
Jesus sacrifice on the Cross. God sacrificed Jesus to save mankind.
Man did not sacrifice Jesus to God. It was people like you who would
not accept Gods loving and forgiving nature without such a dramatic passion
play. So, God sacrificed Jesus to your arrogance, your pride, and
your inability to attribute to God more forgiveness and love than you yourselves
possessed. You wouldn't have believed in His love otherwise.
Assuming that you believe in God and Jesus, of course. This holiday
is about God or the Gods not needing us to sacrifice humans to them, not
about God sacrificing his Son to our stupidity and arrogance. This
is addresseed only to those likely to attack the Church of Civilization
over this holiday.)
1) This idea is appropriate to February.
The first reading should come from Durants description of the religion
of Homeric Greece. Showing that human sacrifice was still practiced. The
next two readings will come from the great books. One from Plutarchs life
of Pelopidas and the other from the Old Testament. The abolition of human
sacrifice can be considered one of the milestones on the road to civilization.
In the Life of Pelopidas the story of how Pelopidas was told in a dream
to sacrifice a chestnut haired virgin before a battle and how a chestnut
mare appeared miraculously to satisfy the requirement without a human sacrifice
is told. In the Old Testament the story of how Abraham was told to sacrifice
his son and a ram miraculously appeared to satisfy the required sacrifice
without human blood is told. Both teach that God or Zeus does not require
human sacrifice. This is the lesson, one of the lessons of history. Pelopidas
goes on to defeat the Spartans considered undefeatable in battle up to
this point brilliantly showing that human sacrifice was not required. This
is a sub-lesson of a general theme of Speaking of Civilization, that being
that we are all born barbarians and only by education and attention to
the lessons of history can we become civilized persons. There is a second
moral here, the story of Abraham and Isaac is misused these days to teach
mindless obedience as a virtue. This is not what it meant at the time it
originated as such sacrifices were commonplace no unusual faith would have
been required for a father to sacrifice his son it was commonplace. This
shows how some churches have twisted their scriptures to mean things they
do not to promote their authority over their congregations. It is worthwhile
and important for Speakers to compare the great books and show lessons
like this, but attacking other churches is not the idea of the Church of
Civilization, so while this error may be legitimately pointed out it should
not be emphasized. Instead the role of other Churches in maintaining traditional
values should be mentioned as an aid to helping people be civilized. This
might be celebrated as an annual feast instead of a sermon. Presidents
day falls late in February, it might be a good day for the occassion.
Taste and smell trigger memory strongly, so providing a cake with chestnut
frosting in the shape of a horse to be cut up to memorialize the occasion
of mankinds turning away from human sacrifice would be appropriate.
As the seasons are then beginning to change from the darkness of winter
to the dawn of spring, it is an appropriate time of the year for this feast.
Turning from the darkness of human sacrifice to the light of greater humanity
to others.
Euripedes did an excellent play about Agamemnon
sacrificing his daughter for a favorable wind. It could be presented
as part of the festival, followed by a play showing the Greeks debating
human sacrifice before their battle, a chestnut haired girl wondering what
will happen next, and the arrival of the chestnut mare. A passion
play extolling the victory of civilization over barbarism.
Top Calendar
March covers Rome
and the beginnings of Christianity. Probably Rome should be emphasized
in March and Christianity in December when the volume is covered again.
In March the GBWW volumes are 12) Lucretius, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius
13) Virgil, 14) Plutarch again, 15) Tacitus Volume 16) holds Ptolemy, Copernicus
and Kepler, it is astronomy, and shows the evolution of astronomical knowledge.
It will probably not play a major role in the sermonology of the church.
Volume 17) Plotinus belongs here as well. The New Testament belongs here.
Top Calendar
April will cover all
of "The Age of Faith and 1/3 of "The Renaissance". April covers the dark
ages of Europe and the Golden age of Islam. It is a good time for teaching
respect for other religions as demonstrated by the high degree of learning
of Islam compared to Europe in this period. The death of this learning
due to religious fundamentalism in Islam is also an important lesson. The
GBWW volumes here are 18) Augustine, 19&20) Thomas Aquinas, and 21)
Dante. Here also belong the Koran, and various philosophers and scientists
of Islams Golden Age. With The Renaissance, you move into a volume devoted
to Italy. Volume 23) Machiavelli.
May covers 2/3 of Renaissance
and 2/3 Reformation.
Top Calendar
When the Renaissance ends, the Reformation
begins. This part of the year will be a favorite with Atheists in the congregation,
as it is a dark and terrible period, full of religious hatred and persecution.
Let it show the importance of tolerance and understanding. The only GBWW
from this period is volume 24) Rabelais. This is a pair of racy novels
depicting earthy humor and corrupt humanity, none of the works of the religious
leaders of the religious wars of the Reformation were found to have contributed
anything to the literature of the world or civilization worthy of inclusion
in the GBWW . There is a Sermon in that fact alone. Shakespeares
plays "Romeo and Juliet" and "The Merchant of Venice" fall into this period.
There are noted on the origin of the Story of "Romeo and Juliet" on pages
15 and 698 of "The Renaissance". The struggle between the "Montagues
and Capulets" is an extension of the historical struggle between the Popes
and the Holy Roman Emperors, Guelfs and Ghibellines that began in the previous
volume.
Tolerance Day
Top
During this month will come the story
of a man who started out as a promising Catholic, converted to Lutheranism,
and then drowned in the sea of hatred died miserable and alone saying he
didn't want to be either a Catholic or Lutheran, only a Christian.
The story is on pages 893 and 894 of the Reformation. It is a supremely
sad story, and one that should be remembered, as tolerance is a great value.
Servetus was burnt at the stake by Calvin for being a Unitarian at this
period as well. As there is no author but Rabelais in the GBWW from
this period, readings from John Lockes essay "On Tolerance" might be appropriate.
This could be combined with Memorial day, emphasizing religious and other
tolerance as one of the values our veterans fought and died for, or not,
whichever seems more appropriate and respectful. One of the things
Durant notes is "that horrible certainty" which justified the various sects
in burning each other to death in the name of their beliefs. Let
us on this day remark that the church is are pleased to not be THAT certain
about anything.
Top Calendar
June will cover 1/3
Reformation and all of Volume 7 "The Age of Reason Begins". After the Reformation
the Age of Reason begins. Here we see the beginnings of our modern intellectual
world. The GBWW here begin with volume 25. Montaigne, he lived a while
under the reformation, during the religious wars in France, and past them.
His book is superficially devout and deeply sceptical. There is probably
material for a lot of sermons in his Essays. Volumes 26&27 are Shakespeare,
good time for a play. Shakespeare actually can be used most of the year
as his plays are placed in various times and countries. Volume 28 belongs
here as well, it is Gilbert, Galileo and Harvey. These are scientific works
again, of academic interest for following the development of science, but
probably not that vital to sermonology. The stories of the men, their struggles
and persecutions, especially Galileo may provide some good sermons. Volume
29. Cervantes will provide good reading for the children and plentiful
material on human nature. Volume 30 is Francis Bacon. Some consider him
the father of modern science. Bacons discussion of the idols of the mind
from the Novum Organon are as relevant today as the day he wrote them.
Volume 31 contains Descarte (I think therefore I am (cogito ergo sum))
and Spinoza. Descarte falls in the Age of Reason Begins. Dumas story,
"The Three Musketeers" falls under Volume 7. Dumas was very proud
of the historical basis of his work. In fact he once challenged someone
to a duel for challenging it. D'Artagnan is still alive when Louis
14 comes to the throne and is the officer of the Musketeers that Louis
has arrest a crooked financier. This is mentioned on page 19 of vol.
8. Dumas story "20 years after" would probably fall under vol 8.
Dumas history is based on historical records, but the French court was
notorious for slanders, lies, and prejudice. In one of Dumas works
a historical figure will be a dastardly villan, in another the same figure
will be a tragic hero. It depends on whose version of 'history' Dumas
was writing from. Dumas historical fiction can be considered to be
fairly accurate reflections of the conspiracy theories of the time.
It is worth noting for a black pride moment that Dumas was 1/4 black.
Dumas father was half black and such a successful general that Napoleon
had him executed as a possible threat to his power. Alexander Pushkin
of Russia has a similar background.
Sermons:
Page 564 last paragraph ending on page
565 and including the first sentence of the first paragraph beginning on
that page is a reading detailing the death of Gustavus Adolphus in the
30 years war. It starts, "Meanwhile Gustavus took the field and defeated
Tilly at rain;" and ends, "Thereafter, greatness left the war." Another
reading begins on page 567, last paragraph, beginning, " Thousands of fertile
acres were left untilled for lack of men," and ending on page 568 with,
"at Zweibrucken a woman confessed to having eaten her child". Another
reading begins on page, 569 first paragraph, beginning, "Delays were caused
by questions of safe-conducts and protocol." ending with "meanwhile men
were going to their death in war." These paragraphs admirably demonstrate
the glory, horror, and vanity of war, and should be capable of inspiring
some great sermons. Lessons that strike me from reading 1 is the nobility
of persons on both sides. If you look at the pictures of Wallenstein
and Gustavus, they look so much alike they could be brothers. Both
are heroic commanders. Both fighting in what can be considered a
worthy cause, both with practical political as well as idealist motives.
You should read the entire section before speaking from these readings
to have the context clearly in mind. If Gustavus had lost, we might
be subject today to something like the Spanish Inquisition, denied
religious freedom or freedom of thought. Yet, his victory prolonged
a war that Wallenstein had almost won and created the continued horrors
of the second reading. This illustrates another lesson. It
has frequently been said that the most unjust peace is better than the
most just war. The horrors of civil war especially are ugly beyond
belief. When a soldier fights to preserve an existing system, he
is fighting for the peace and well being of order, for his people.
When a soldier fights to change a corrupt system he is fighting also for
the good of his people. In civil strife there are always noble and
decent men on both sides. The third passage illustrates the arrogance
and pride and vanity of princes and ambassadors too often the cause of
war and its continuance. These readings could make up the basis for
three sermons or one depending on the Speakers choice. There are
a lot more in this volume, but these are powerful.
Page 575, Durant leaves the horrors of
the 30 years war to look at scientific progress. The first two paragraphs
summarize superstition, ending with "The world is (every so often) coming
to an end." A good basis for a sermon. Later this section describes
the burning of tens or hundreds of thousands in witch hunts. Another
good basis for a sermon. Then it moves on to the heroes of the beginning
of the age of reason. One of these heroes discussed in the section
on England earlier in the volume is Sir Francis Bacon. In the GBWW,
his works are listed, and you will find a great many wonderful paragraphs
in "The Advancement of Learning", some of these paragraphs will serve to
illustrate the evils of superstion. Others common errors of ancient
scholars, and others the virtues and values of learning. Book 1 is
great and almost every paragraph is worthy of a sermon.
Top Calendar
July will cover all
of Volume 8, "The Age of Louis the XIV", an appropriate month for the Sun
king. It will continue with 1/3 of "The Age of Voltaire". This is highly
symbolic, the absolute dictatorship of the King of France advanced and
maintained by Richelieu may be compared to the sun beating down in July
and burning all it touches. A nice allegory of the evils of excess power.
I love these coincidences. Spinoza of volume 31 GBWW belongs here his Ethics
makes it into virtually every collection of great books. Volume 32 is Milton,
volume 33 is Pascal. Here we find a return to religion. Volume 34 is Newton
and Huygens, great scientific works. Newton left thousands of pages
of alchemical works behind, all useless to modern science. A lesson
here is that you cannot reject a persons teachings or thought just because
you find fault with part of them. John Locke of Volume 35 also belongs
here along with George Berkely. Jonathan Swift of volume 36 is split between
this and the next volume.
Independence
(Freedom) Day
It is an amusing coincidence that when
we study one of the great absolute monarchs of history we also celebrate
Independence Day. While the American State Papers do not belong here
under normal order, they should be used here for the Church picnic or celebration
of this holiday. Quotations of the bad things old Louis did are also
appropriate.
Top Calendar
August will cover
2/3 of "The Age of Voltaire" and 2/3 "Rousseau and Revolution". David Hume
of volume 35 belongs here. Laurence Sterne belongs here under the Age of
Voltaire. It should be noted that Voltaire and Roussea lived in the same
period and knew one another. So there is overlap in these volumes of the
GBWW as well. Henry Fielding’s novel "Tom Jones" belongs here as well volume
37 of the GBWW. Montesquieu’s "The Spirit of the Laws" belongs here. He
bridges from the age of Louis the 14th to Voltaire. His book was one of
the most important books on government in history. You will find him quoted
in "The Federalist".
Top Calendar
September will
cover 1/3 "Rousseau and Revolution" and all of "The Age of Napoleon". This
will be a controversial period in the Church Calendar, because the French
Revolution is covered in detail here. It is an atheist Revolution and under
the Terror, atheists become just as bloody and inhumane as Christians during
the Reformation. It foreshadows the genocide under atheist doctrines in
the Soviet Union and Communist China. Even Atheists should focus on tolerance.
Volume 39 of the GBWW is "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith, it belongs
here, though again Adam Smiths life overlaps the previous volume. Edward
Gibbons "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" belongs here, but may be
used with volume 3 as it covers the Roman Empire he is volumes 40 and 41
of the GBWW Emmanual Kant in volume 42 belongs here as well. Volume 43,
American State papers and The Federalist belongs here as well. Volume 44,
Boswell’s life of Johnson belongs here as well. Rousseaus works are in
volume 38 GBWW with Montesquieu. Volume 45, Lavoisier, Fourier and Faraday
belong in these two volumes, but again these are historical scientific
works, worth reading to develop an understanding of how science developed,
the sermonology here is seeing how knowledge advances step by step.
Pointing out the fact that even the greatest scientific minds in history
made mistakes can help regular people accept their own failings and the
failings of others. Volume 46, Hegel and volume 47 Goethe belong here as
well. Obscure philosophy and a great play.
Labor Day
It is another amusing coincidence that
Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" comes up in the month of Labor Day.
It is quite appropriate, as Mr. Smith was well aware of the dangers of
allowing the wealthy to dominate society and warned against it in "The
Wealth of Nations" there are appropriate quotations from him available
to celebrate this holiday.
Top Calendar
The remainder of the GBWW were written
after the period of history covered by Durant. John Stuart Mill in volume
43 belongs there with American State Papers. His "On Liberty" would be
appropriate for July 4. The other volumes may be used as appropriate. Note,
none of this is written in stone, and this listing is based on the 1952
version of GBWW, not the most recent which has seen some authors and titles
change. The Speaker is not limited to these books, but may choose others
in appropriate periods as he deems right. If there is ever a Senate
of Civilization as proposed below, the Church of Civilization will probably
develop a set of Great Books tailored with it in mind.
Top Calendar
October covers volume
1 again. Emphasis here might be more on the Civilizations of India, China,
Japan, etc, and in January focus might be on primitive peoples.
Columbus Day
On the month when we once more explore
the entire world we encounter the Great Explorer and Discover Columbus.
After thinking about the suggestion for a Halloween Party below, it occured
to me that a horribly politically correct Church day was highly appropriate
here. In "Our Oriental Heritage" Durant finishes with a couple of
paragraphs showing all the gifts to civilization that originated outside
of Europe. Having a religious service where children dressed in costume
step up and recite the gifts they give to Civilization would be cute, educational,
appropriate, and disgustingly politically correct. Oh well, nothing
is perfect. I still think it would be a good way to observe Columbus
Day.
Halloween
This is a great month for Halloween to
occur. A party where people dress up as persons famous or not from
the various ancient and oriental civilizations would be great. Egyptians,
Assyrians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Japanese, etc.
It occurs to me that some of the costumes, if historically accurate, mught be quite licentious. Many of these cultures had women going topless. This could lead to accusations of impropriety by other religions. The obvious answer to such criticisms is that Catholicism has its Carnivale, why shouldn't we?
Most religions have a day or festival in which normal rules are relaxed. Possibly such a festival might be a good idea. The Catholic Carnivale appears to have evolved accidentally from Lent, but the universality of such festivals suggests that they serve some purpose. This might be a good time for such a festival.
Amusingly, Halloween is traditionally the night when the dead come back from their graves to haunt the living. In a costume ball such as this, we are remembering the dead civilizations of the past.
Top Calendar
November volume
2. Ancient Greece. Here we emphasize the beginnings of science and
philosophy instead of the transition from uncivilized to civilized.
Archimedes
Day
This should be commemorated with readings
from Durant showing the great powers of the Ancient World backing down
from Rome. Then, the story from Plutarch of Romes siege of Syracuse
when the Romans faced the mind of Aristotle and became too terrfied to
approach the walls. It ends with Archimedes death, but it is a great
story about the power of intellect and science. The idea is to emphasize
the importance of science and knowledge. This could be done on Thanksgiving
day giving thanks for the blessings of science and rational thought or
on another day as appropriate. As the traditional story goes, the
Indians taught the Pilgrims how to grow maize, beans and squash, and this
new knowledge let them survive. Ergo, it is highly appropriate for
Archimedes days emphasis on the value of learning and science. See
the discussion of Jesus Day in December for more on this. At the
Thanksgiving Feast you can give thanks to science and reason for what they
provide.
It is neat to think of kids learning math and basic mechanics of levers, etc. on this day. The siege of Syracuse by Rome is an exciting theme, and introducing models of the engines used would be a great basis for teaching fundamental principles.
Top Calendar
December volume
3. Here we cover Rome and Early Christianity. Focus on the the birth of
Christianity is appropriate for this month.
Christmas (The
Festival of Lights and Faith)
There is nothing wrong with celebrating Christmas. Jesus was
a great and gentle teacher. His life and death changed the world
forever. His teachings are worthy of study and are included in the
commentaries read by the Church of Civilization. So, celebrate Christmas
as Christmas or Jesus Day.
Jesus is a delicate issue for the Church of Civilization. (Please note, the Creed was composed months before these paragraphs, please read it first) The Creed of Civilization states quite clearly that the Church does not affirm any supernatural beliefs. So the Church cannot affirm Jesus as the Son of God, as the Lamb which washes away the sins of the world, as a sacrifice by God for our salvation, or even as a path to salvation. In a proper attitude of humility, as a Church which does not claim any divine revelation, the Church does not deny these things either. This being the case, can the Church just ignore Jesus. Well, the Creed of Civilization says, "We profess the importance of the Lessons of History." That being the case we can hardly ignore Christianity, as one of the most powerful movements in history it must have some lessons to teach. Some of them are taught during the Reformation and on Tolerance Day, but a movement this strong must have some strengths to emulate as well as faults to criticize. The Creed of Civilization also says, "We profess the importance of the teachings of the Great Men of History." If you look at his impact on history, Jesus must be considered one of the Great Men of History. So, we not only cannot ignore him, we must place an appropriate importance on his teachings. What is there about Jesus that the Church can Affirm? The Creed of Civilization says, "We have faith in the power of faith.". Some might take issue with this, but it is unarguable on a scientific basis. The Placebo effect, i.e. the effect of belief or faith is so strong and pervasive that expensive and time consuming steps must be taken to eliminate it from various experiments and tests. Now, some will say that Jesus death on the cross proves the meaninglessness of faith. Well, Archimedes who relied on mathematics was also killed by the Romans. We do our best, as Archimedes did when fortifying Syracuse. When the hard times hit, we hold tight to faith. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. Neither Archimedes or Jesus influence was ended by death. Archimedes became an icon long remembered of the power of the human intellect, and Jesus of the power of faith. The story of Jesus is a witness to the power of faith, and the history of Christianity is a witness to the power of faith. We can affirm Jesus as a personification of the power of faith, as we affirm Archimedes as a personification of the power of math and science. This issue of faith is one of the fundamental issues of the Church. Science shows the power of faith to heal, science is showing how a religious life style increases health and longevity. One of the fundamental purposes of the Church is to provide these benefits to reasonable people who have a hard time with some of the beliefs of other Churchs. You cannot have the benefits of faith without affirming it, and Jesus life and teachings make a powerful affirmation of the power of faith. If you look at Archimedes as symbolic of pure reason, and Jesus as symbolic of faith, then the Church is about joining the two together. Uniting reason with faith as reason increasingly shows the benefits of faith in life. A picture of Archimedes embracing or clasping hands with Jesus would be a powerful symbolic statement of this principle. In many ways it graphically expresses the purpose of the church, providing a positive, faith affirming life style for rational persons like sceptics, agnostics, and atheists. While we are here, let us bring Sir Isaac Newton into the picture. Archimedes was devoted to pure reason. He felt that its application to physical tasks was beneath its dignity. Jesus was a man of pure faith. Faith works in ways not clear to reason. It is difficult for reason to be reconciled with faith. We do it by inductive reasoning. We observe the facts and they induce a hypothetical relationship in our minds. Newton said that he did not hypothesize, in this he followed "The New Organon" of Sir Francis Bacon. He meant he reasoned inductively from observed facts instead of deductively from assumed premisses. He was one of the first real icons of the inductive or modern scientific method. Aristotle came close in Classical Greece, but not that close. A picture of Archimedes united with Jesus while Newton as the symbol of inductive thought or the scientific method reconciling the two, looks on and smiles would summarize graphically the attitude of the Church to faith. So, the Church affirms Jesus as a great teacher of the value of faith in life.
Now it is popular to point out that Jesus was not born in December and other factual errors in the Christmas story. This is true, but let us not let irrelevant facts interfere with relevant realities. Christmas was not originally a Christian Festival, the Romans celebrated a festival to Jupiter with gift giving at this time of year. The winter solstice is emotionally a serious time of year. Short days and cold temperatures breed depression. Societies evolve celebrations to meet their needs. Society needs a festive celebration that emphasizes positive attitude or faith on the winter solstice. Chronic depression at this time of year is a major social problem, and a Church needs to be proactive, reaching out with a positive message and a reminder that all is not lost now above all. It is right and appropriate to put Jesus day with its emphasis on faith at this time of year. Let us put this in context with Archimedes day. In Archimedes day we are grateful for what science and reason have provided. Occurring as it does at the end of traditional harvest, it shows the role of reason in preparing for the foreseen needs of the future. Reason has done its part. In the cold and darkness of winter, it is a time for faith, for confident belief in the future. Just as you need faith in this time of short days and cold weather that the spring will come, so you need faith in the dark and depressing days of your own life that a personal spring will arrive. Because of its psychological realities, i.e. chronic depression at this time of year, and because of its symbolic realities as being akin to tough times in life, this is the right time for a festival that emphasizes the power of faith and hope. The power which Jesus personifies as Archimedes personifies reason. These are the messages for Jesus day, and hopefully members of the Church, when they hit the cold winters of their personal lives will remember them and hold tight to their faith in faith itself. None of this is meant to diminish Jesus other teachings of mercy, brotherly love, etc. These are also worthwhile.
Top Calendar
New Years Eve. A discussion of dating
systems came up recently on a Libertarian forum. I thought one of
the ideas was quite good. The suggestion was to add 10,000 years
to the current date to mark the beginning of the current interglacial period.
It has a lot of elegance, as it does not require actually changing modern
dates. The year 2001 becomes the year 12001. What it does do
is put our world into a bigger context. It shows the major climactic
changes which can effect our lives. It also dates the development
of civilization. There is little doubt that our current civilizations
developed after the glaciers receded. So, it might be amusing to
have a Church of Civilization dating system based on this. Call it
DC for the Dawn of Civilization and make the new year 12,001 DC.
It is appropriate as we will look at early man in January, and tribal man,
and the glaciations. It is also appropriate in relevance to the Feast
of the Chestnut Mare when we anticipate the end of winter with a festival
celebrating the dawn of a more humane civilization with the end of human
sacrifice, and it resonates with Jesus day when we emphasis the need of
faith in the cold days of winter and the cold days of our personal lives.
This is not precise of course, no single event 12,001 years ago can be
cited as marking the Dawn of Civilization, it is just an interesting idea.
The 20th century is mirrored in the Story
of Civilization in a subtle way. The way each volume is written changes
slightly as the tumultous history of the 20th century influences the writers.
The events of WWII have a major impact and this can be discussed based
on readings of the different volumes.
Prayers
and Ceremonies (Affirmations)
Top
Not all of the Church’s missions are easily
integrated. It must deal with teaching the lessons of history. Most lessons
are negative, and can promote negative expectations. It must also promote
positive feelings. Other churches do this by incorporating the sermon into
a generally uplifting routine called a ceremony. The Church of Civilization
will imitate this method, as an effective means of focusing the mind on
being positive and producing that uplift towards optimism and positive
thought desired by the mission statement. This imitates the attitude of
Confucius towards religious ceremonies. Confucius was even more agnostic
in his teachings than Buddha. He emphasized filial piety and religious
ceremony for their practical importance to society. The Church of Civilization
emphasizes traditional values and religious ceremony for their practical
importance to society and church members.
The Church of Civilization is a church which combines Buddha’s attitude towards the existence of God, the Hindu attitude towards difference in religious belief, the Confucian attitude towards tradition and ceremony, with the Jewish love of learning and respect for scholarship. This is the answer to the question of what the church is about, if anybody asks. This Church of Civilization sounds very respectable.
In practice it is very close to Judaism. It has a ministry similar to a Rabbinate. It has a large assortment of books in which the first three volumes of "The Story of Civilization" are emphasized by being reviewed twice a year as the Torah the first five books of the Old Testament are emphasized in Judaism. Like Judaism it has a large selection of works by great sages of the past to illuminate these histories. In spirit it is really Confucian, largely concerned with practical matters and the maintenance of a civil society. Judaism can be very practical in this fashion as well.
Church
Services (Affirmations)
Top
Naturally the Church will require ceremonies
for regular services, marriages, etc. It is not the purpose of this document
to lay out everything in words carved in stone. These examples are only
examples and others are invited to add to them.
Affirmation of Faith and Communal
Meals
Affirmation of Welcome
Affirmation of Responsibility
Affirmations of Right Desire
Private
Light of Faith
and Healing
Prayer at Meals
Sleeping
Om
Public
Affirmation of Union (Marriage)
Affirmation of Respect and Good Will
Affirmation (Recognition) of Speakerhood
Basic Service the Affirmation of Faith
The concept of a daily/weekly service raises the question of when is the Sabbath? The Moslem Sabbath is Friday, the Jewish Sabbath is Saturday, and the Christian Sabbath is Sunday. One thought would be to use Saturday as the Sabbath, this would make it easier for Christians to attend 'Civilized' services if they wanted to. It would discriminate against Jews and some other denominations. All things considered it is probably best to go with the flow. Hold the major, weekly Affirmation of Faith on Sunday. Fit in with the rest of society with a minimum of friction.
Any church member may officiate at the Affirmation of Faith, and it may be held daily. During daily services, the sermon can be basically abbreviated or left out. The Affirmation is meant to be a placebo booster, an aid to positive thinking and attitude. Writing and delivering sermons is a fair amount of work, and 7 full length sermons a week are not necessary. It is highly advisable that a person doing the reading for deaconhood or to become a speaker should officiate when a sermon is to be given. Why would anyone listen to anyone else? Other affirmations have specific responsibilities associated with them which should not be taken lightly and therefore they cannot be performed by someone not officially filling the role of a speaker, whether that person is an acting deacon, a deacon or a speaker. Affirmations of right desire have legally depending on circumstances the confidentiality of the confessional. Affirmations of union are legal unions with legal ramifications. Etc.
This service is modeled after classic Christian services. There is no reason why any other model ceremonies should not be used. Like the Catholic Mass, this should be attended weekly, but may be attended daily. The purpose of this service is to promote calm confidence and positive attitude. After a few months thought, I would like to recommend this basic service a little more strongly. Anthropology and Evolution include a concept called climax design. I first ran across it in a book on Native American Cultures along the Mississippi, or some such. In a discussion of moccassins it noted that the design had reached a climax for function and that after that all changes had been cosmetic and tended to inhibit function. Cockroaches and sharks are two examples of climax design in nature. The order of the Mass or service below is an old one. It reached pretty much this same form hundreds of years before Christ in Egyptian Alexandria where Greek, Egyptian, and Hebrew cultures mixed. It is basically the same in Judaism, Catholicism, Greek Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, and Episcopalian churches. Something that lasts that long with only minor changes can be considered a climax in the evolution of that kind of thing. Ergo, the ceremony presented below may be considered very well designed by evolution to do what it does. It traditionally includes incense. The use of aromatherapy has left the crank medical field and entered economics. Malls and stores provide chosen aromas to promote a positive attitude, which promotes confidence, which promotes spending. The use of appropriate scents, pot pourri, incense, etc. is therefore encouraged to help trigger the positive attitude this ceremony is meant to promote.
First Action: The Procession opening HymnSweet Hour of Prayer might be appropriate
The procession signals the congregation that the service is about to begin. The Speaker and deacons enter and proceed to the altar or stage at the front of the church. Music is appropriate. Symbols are also appropriate. A flag or banner displaying the Sign of Civilization carried in the procession and placed at the altar is a good example of such a symbol.
Second Action: Gathering Hymn
The congregation sings a hymn. Sonny and Chers ‘Got You Babe’ comes to mind, though other music as appropriate or to the taste of the Speaker, Choir, and Congregation may be appropriate. Most hymns are pretty standard in melody and words and can be adapted to an agnostic service by substituting placebo for lord, faith for faith, etc. This hymn, the act of singing together helps the mood and promotes the sense of community and association that is one of the main aims of church attendance. Other songs that come to mind are "Don't Worry, Be Happy" and "Accentuate the Positive". Faith of Our Parents is possibly appropriate.
Third Action: Signing In
The Speaker signs the infinity sign and says, ‘ May your placebo be strong, and your nocebo be weak or entirely gone.’
The congregation responds, ‘and yours also’.
The congregation makes the infinity sign,
the sign of the Church of Civilization.
Fourth Action: Opening prayer: the Creed of Civilization.
"The Church of Civilization does not endorse any supernatural beliefs."
"The Church of Civilization does not deny any supernatural beliefs."
"We profess the importance of the Lessons of History."
"We profess the importance of the teachings of the Great Men of History."
"We desire to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past."
"We believe in the importance of harmonious association with our fellows."
"We gather to practice harmonious association with our fellows."
"We believe in the power of positive thinking."
"We profess the power of prayer."
"We have faith in the power of faith."
"We maintain and support those traditional values which are necessary to a civil society."
Fifth Action: 1st Reading:
A selected passage from ‘The Story of Civilization’ volume for that month, or applicable commentaries is read. This is one of three such readings, chosen by the Speaker to support a common theme, one of the lessons of history, which he will expound in his homily or sermon. The Deacons, the Speaker or a member of the Congregation may do the reading.
Sixth Action: Responsorial Reading
In this portion of the ceremony, a psalm or passage is read one line at a time, and the congregation makes a reply as a whole. This involves the congregation in the reading and preparation of the homily. This can be skipped, or a selection from any of the literature of the Great Books, Aeschylus, Homer, Virgil, Shakespeare, or other author read with a reply or affirmation chosen by the speaker.
Something like, ‘We respect the lessons of history’; ‘The words of the wise are honored’ etc. It will probably take some time to develop a full selection of appropriate readings of this sort.
Seventh Action: 2nd Reading.
As the first reading, developing the theme
of the sermon.
Eighth Action: Acclamation
A statement acclaiming and confirming the principle in the sermon or one of the tenets of the Creed of Civilization. Composed or selected by the speaker, and led by the speaker in unison with the congregation. In order for the congregation to follow along, photocopies of the service essentials like this should be available.
Ninth Action: 3rd Reading.
As the first two readings, this one probably from a commentary, Aristotle’s Politics, Machiavellis Prince, Hobbes Leviathan, etc. In the traditional versions of this service, the Priest reads the 3rd Reading. In this case, as the Speaker will be using it to introduce his homily, the Speaker should probably read this passage. The Speaker might want to begin his sermon with a regular phrase like "I Speak for Civilization".
Tenth Action: Homily
The Speaker presents the lessons to be reviewed or learned from that day’s readings.
Eleventh Action: Prayer for Blessings
The Speaker leads the congregation in a prayer for blessings. The following is recommended.
"We believe in the power of positive thinking."
"We profess the power of prayer."
"We have faith in the power of faith."
We pray for the ability to spend our lives well."
"We seek the serenity to accept those things we cannot change."
‘We seek the courage to change those things we can."
‘We seek the wisdom to know the difference."
Twelfth Action: Offering and Offertory Hymn A mighty fortress is Our Faith might be appropriate
Here it comes; here the church asks you for money. Well, you knew it was going to happen, this IS a church after all. The church service is about building a positive attitude in members of the congregation. Believe it or not, the act of giving is an important part of that process. There are two basic reasons for giving, weakness and strength. The more basic of these two reasons is strength. Fundamentally, the act of giving is an act of strength. It is a person saying, "I have plenty. I am not afraid of tomorrow. Here I will share with you". In nature you can only give if you have something to give. You can only have something to give if your strength has let you acquire it. Giving is a confirmation and affirmation of personal strength, ability, and confidence. Failure to give is a sign of fear. You look at the dollar, or whatever, consider how little you have compared to what you want, think of how hard it was to get, and how much it hurts to give it up. Then you refuse to give the basis of refusal fear of not having what you want. The action of giving is a renunciation of this fear. It should be treated as such in the service.
I (we) offer this gift in faithful confidence of
My (our) ability to handle whatever tomorrow may bring.
When said as I, it is a personal affirmation of individual strength. When said as we, it becomes an affirmation of the strength of the church. The I, my form is probably the best for regular services, though the We, our form may be useful for some services.
It is important to emphasize that the offering is symbolic, this is a good prayer and could be taken too seriously by some. No one should offer so much money that they actually do themselves injury. People have been known to become as addicted to charity as to gambling. Of course, the church does have to meet expenses. Mortgage payments, repairs, and a salary for the speaker, etc.
The Offertory hymn is sung as the offering bowl is passed around. Each member of the congregation may sign the infinity sign over the bowl and repeat the individual version of the prayer as he makes his offering.
Thirteenth Action: Intercessions
Intercessions are when the congregation asks for help for friends and members of the congregation who are ill, or when it prays for world peace, help for the homeless, etc.
The form of this is the Speaker, Deacon, or a member of the Congregation reads who or what is to be prayed for, and the congregation responds.
"We profess the power of prayer."
"We have faith in the power of faith."
"That this may happen."
An example might be, the Speaker says, "We pray for the health of Mrs. Rogers who is in the hospital for surgery and for the emotional wellbeing of her husband and two boys."
The congregation responds with the above prayer,
"We profess the power of prayer."
"We have faith in the power of faith."
"That this may happen."
Another example might be, the Speaker says, "We pray for the aids victims in Africa". The membership of the church should probably be active in choosing what causes to support.
The congregation responds with the:
"We profess the power of prayer."
"We have faith in the power of faith."
"That this may happen."
Fourteenth Action: Additional Offerings for intercessions with Offertory Hymn
Churches regularly contribute to various worthy causes. Starving children, food banks, medical research, etc. The Church of Civilization as a full-fledged church can be expected to do the same. True, Roman Catholics get hit as many as five and six times a service sometimes, but that goes with the territory. This is for those additional offerings, and again, the emphasis is on building the confidence and positive attitude of Church members. Many people feel as though their actions are meaningless, their votes useless, their opinions unimportant. Giving to a cause allows them to symbolically and actually do something to make a difference in the world. This occurs during the intercession prayers for causes like aids in Africa.
We make this offering for (whatever) in faithful confidence
Of our ability to make a difference in the world.
An individual version of this prayer with I and my, substituted for we and our, may be used by each member as they cast their offerings into the bowl. The idea is personal affirmation of strength. It is worth noting that not all intercessions require an offering. Offerings are for major efforts, like a new church roof, treatment for cancer, charitable aid to people dying of aids in Africa, etc. Intercessions can be prayed for a list of church members in the hospital, etc. This might be silly, but knowing that they are being prayed for can help, if only because it shows that someone cares.
Fifteenth Action: Closing Prayer
"We profess the power of prayer."
"We have faith in the power of faith."
The Placebo is that faith, which heals and produces success,
The Nocebo is that faith which hurts and brings failure.
Holding this clearly in our minds we pray,"
May our Placebo be Strong"
And our Nocebo be weak or entirely gone."
Sixteenth Action: Blessing of Fellowship
Each member of the congregation turns to those around them and shakes their hand, and says,
May your Placebo be Strong"
And your Nocebo be weak or entirely gone."
This leaves the speaker and deacons with nothing to do, so they exchange the blessing among themselves and possibly with some persons in the front row of the congregation.
Seventeenth Action: End of Service
Just as the service needs a definite start with the procession it requires a definite end. The Speaker signs the infinity sign towards the audience and says.
The Service is ended,
May you walk your path in confident
serenity.
The Congregation replies,
And you also.
Eighteenth Action: Closing Hymn.
Last hymn is sung to end service. Persons
may begin to leave at this time or wait until the hymn is finished.
Probably potluck meal should be waiting after service. This should be by groups of 5 or 6 or 7 or 8, arranged earlier by bulletin board. The church may have a picnic ground arranged at a local park or near the church.
Communal Meals
Top Affirmations
Harmonious association with our fellows
includes communal meals and celebrations. The church with potluck meals,
dancing, or whatever should observe holidays like Thanksgiving, the Fourth
of July, etc. The communal meals require a prayer to focus the minds of
the members on the positive and not the negative. The positive will be
designated the placebo after the placebo effect which produces healing
through faith. The negative will be designated as Nocebo after the Nocebo
effect, which produces illness through faith.
It is worth noting that Communal Meals have an ancient and honorable tradition. They are one of the laws that Aristotle speaks of many times in his Politics. In ancient times they were instituted as a guard against the rise of tyrants, and tyrants outlawed them to prevent trust and fellowship developing among the citizens to prevent successful revolution. As a safeguard against tyranny in ancient times, they are an honorable and noble practice. While they may no longer be necessary or practical as a guard against the tyranny possible to a megapolitical organization like the nation states of the modern world, they should be valued as an honored tradition. In addition, they have special uses in the modern world. Community is vanishing from the world, and communal meals develop a sense of community. Single persons gathered together each bringing a dish feast at little expense. The same single persons living alone may eat badly and with less interesting food. The tradition of communal meals is one that the Church of Civilization should sponsor. A bulletin board on which members wishing to host such a meal list the basic kinds of dishes needed to which other members can sign and agree to bring each a needed dish in the required amount should be available in churches with a large enough congregation. It should be the aim of members of the Church to have at least one communal meal a week. In addition, the Church may want to sponsor a daily communal meal when possible. Those reading the Story of Civilization on a regular schedule to become deacons might attend this. In addition, the prayer at the beginning of communal meals may be modified to mention the historical importance of this tradition and its honored role as an enemy of tyranny. At one time a traveler in Sparta remarked on their communal meals that having eaten what the Spartans eat, he understood why they were so willing to die in battle. Some ancient customs should be imitated others not. It is not recommended to imitate Spartan cooking in the communal meals of the Church. In Sparta, communal meals were invitation only. I.E. groups were closed. Persons could not join a group unless all members of the group agreed to accept that person. When a new member was proposed, each of the members would drop a bit of dough into a bowl, if anyone flattened the ball of dough, the person was refused membership. Such closed tables might prove useful in a large congregation. Open tables, should always be available for new members, and for hospitality to guests.
Food is a powerful symbol. In the
wolf pack, the alpha male supervises the order in which the wolves eat,
and ensures that
even the weakest wolf shares in the meal.
In the patriarchal family, the father cuts the meat and ceremoniously begins
the meal.
In the Army, the Top Sergeant brings and
personally serves food to the soldiers. The act of providing food
is an act of power.
When a figure in authority does it, it
is an autocratic act. When equals share food together it is a powerful
symbol of an
egalitarian society. This communalism
is very different than communism. In communism, those who do not
contribute get the
same shares by right as those who do contribute.
In communalism, those who contribute expect the others to contribute
equally. Communism requires an autocratic
head to enforce the rules. Communalism requires the active support
of members
as equals. This act of bringing
food is an act of personal power and self respect, presenting it to others
is good practice in
giving and receiving from others is good
practice in receiving as equals. It builds community and mutual respect.
In theory at
least. Children might be encouraged
to participate, and a small ceremony at the beginning of the meal when
each respected
member of the community is asked to present
what he or she has brought might be quite powerful. Further, thinking
of
children. Mothers might get together
and plan meals, each mother preparing a dish, and sending them to school
with their
children who know to eat together and
share. This would let Mothers know that their children were eating
with other children
whose families shared similar values,
it would promote a sense of community among the children, and provide a
more
interesting meal than a sack lunch.
Other churches might want to think of adopting a similar practice.
In fact there is a lot in this
paper that other churches might want to
consider imitating. Which is only fair considering that I have shown
no hesitation in
borrowing from them.
This inspired me to lie awake at night
thinking about such a small ceremony to be said prior to the prayer above.
Each
participant would take one line, reciting
as equals until the entire thing is recited. Then all could join
in the prayer for communal
meals.
Optional Ceremony about
Freedom and Equality
Top
In Ancient times tyrants would hold great feasts.
None could eat till the tyrant was seated at the high place.
This taught all there that they ate and drank, lived and died at the whim of a tyrant.
We gather together each bringing food to share.
The food is a symbol of our strength to supply our needs.
This strength gives us freedom from the whims of tyrants.
In Camelot King Arthur declared a round table with no high place.
All who sat there sat together as equals, in this sense let us remember...
In the Church of Civilization, all our tables are round.
TopCommunal Prayer at Meals
"We believe in the importance of harmonious association with our fellows."
"We gather to practice harmonious association with our fellows."
"We are thankful for their companionship here today."
"We profess the power of prayer."
"We have faith in the power of faith."
"Let this food symbolize all that enters us."
"As with the food, so with all positive and negative influences in our lives."
"Let the nourishment of this food strengthen our placebo."
"Let nothing in this food strengthen our Nocebo."
"As we pray to strengthen the positive elements in this food, "
"So may the positive in what we experience in life have a strong effect on us."
"As we pray that the negative elements in this food have little effect on us,"
"So we pray that the negative we encounter daily will effect us little."
"May our Placebo be strong and our Nocebo weak, or entirely gone."
Other Ceremonies (Affirmations)
Most human societies have various ceremonies marking the major points of life. The Church of Civilization, assuming that these ceremonies have evolved to meet the psychological and emotional needs of people should emulate this order and action.
Affirmation
of Welcome
Top Affirmations
The first of these ceremonies is namegiving,
baptism, or otherwise a ceremony recognizing the arrival of a new person
into the community. Water is frequently used to mark this passage. Even
the Vikings used water to recognize the official acceptance of a child
the third day after its birth. This ceremony we shall call the Affirmation
of Welcome. Affirmation will be used in place of Ceremony as being more
positive and less offensive. It is a ceremony affirming the arrival of
a new person into the Church Community and affirming their acceptance by
that community. As such it may be used either for new converts or new born.
The taking of a new name is a traditional part of this affirmation, though
not required. It should consist of the use of water, probably the symbolic
sprinkling of a few drops of water, to wash away the unCivil past, and
cleanse the newcomer symbolically for acceptance into the community of
Civilization. It may include a name giving as well. Variations can be modeled
after ceremonies from various religions. The Church Community assembled
should have verbal responses in the ceremony affirming their acceptance
of the newcomer and wishing him or her well by asking that their placebo
be strong and nocebo be weak.
The Affirmation of Welcome normally consists of, introduction and welcome to family and guests, appropriate readings , naming and blessing, appointment of Mentors or Guardians, conclusion, presentation of Child and Certificate.
Affirmation
of Responsibility
Top Affirmations
Puberty is generally recognized as a major
turning point in human life. Throughout most of history this has been recognized
with a ceremony for both sexes. For boys it has been normally recognized
with a ceremony welcoming the lad of 13 or 14 into the ranks of adult males.
For women it has generally been recognized by marrying them off. Most societies
married women off at the age of 12 or 13, and considered a woman unmarried
at 16 to be an old maid or spinster. Today, it is advisable to recognize
it with an Affirmation of Responsibility for both sexes. The Affirmation
should focus on the passage from childhood to adulthood, it should be at
the age of 13 for most girls and the age of 14 for most boys. It should
emphasize recognition and acceptance of responsibility for their reproductive
capacity and recognition and acceptance of their responsibility to respect
the rights of others. Symbolically it may include the gift of a weapon,
and readings from the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the
Constitution, the Federalist Papers, or other appropriate sources emphasizing
Citizenship and Responsibility. The gift of the weapon symbolizes power
and the responsibility that that power entails. Power should never exist
separate from Responsibility, and weapons symbolize power, and thus become
a symbol of responsibility. Becoming a young adult increases ones
responsibility. At this time, the young adult may, according to the practices
of the Congregation be encouraged to begin the reading to become a deacon
of the Church. Reading about the mores, customs, and history of humanity
will put their own teenage problems into perspective. It is worth noting
that in a majority of societies up to a couple of hundred years ago, girls
got married between the ages of 12 and 15. This may be a problem with adolescent
girls as the reading of the Story of Civilization may give them some ideas
about starting their reproductive life younger than is considered appropriate
today.
Teenage angst is largely concerned with acceptance. During this tumultous emotional time, a formal acknowledgement of the changed nature of the person, and acceptance of those changes with emphasis on the responsibilities involved will more than likely help the person involved handle the transition.
The Affirmation of Responsibility normally consists of, introduction and welcome to family and guests, Mentors or Guardians, appropriate readings, conclusion, presentation of Young Adult, his or her oath of responsibility. If it includes the start of reading Durant, it should be followed in nine months by the Recognition of Deaconhood. There are a couple of reasons why a parent or congregation might want to include the reading as part of this passage rite. It is a challenging initiation, though missing the physical pain of many tribal rites of passage. It is educational. It teaches a valuable lesson about perseverance and accomplishing goals. The eleven volumes of the Story of Civilization must appear a daunting read. Impossible even. To actually read it over a period of 9 months will show how a large goal can be accomplished little by little. "The journey of a thousand miles is started with a single step." This supports ideas like savings accounts, perseverance, etc. Then there is the pride that accomplishing a goal like this can give to the young adult, plus the bonus to their self esteem that being recognized as a Deacon of the Church can give them. On the other hand, if the young adult is not yet reading fast enough to accomplish the task, or other factors interfere, it might not be a good idea.
If the Affirmation of Responsibility is done in January, as suggested in the calendar, this will produce a group of young people of about the same age doing the same reading at the same time. Possibly the communal meal following the Affirmation of Faith should have a readers table for these young people to get together at. They can eat, talk about the reading, and get to know each other. Possibly a more mature adult should be present, or the meal could take place for groups of 5 or 6 young adults at a members house.
A Catechism
of Civilization
Well, it has happened again. A student
in High School has shot up the school. This time in Southern California,
Santee, I believe. This has somehow motivated me to become more specific
about the wording of the Affirmation of Responsibility. As this is
to occur at puberty, it is right that it should address this problem among
others. Still, there is a Caveat here. Actions taken in haste
on the impulse of current events are always prejudiced by those events
and will weigh some matters more heavily than others. This Catechism
should be evaluate in this light. It will be less appropriate for
adult initates to the Church, and may become inappropriate in a future
where such events are less common. Further, it can hardly be perfect
as I am writing it off the top of my head. One of the purposes will
be to provide a philosophical basis for bullied and abused teenagers to
not shoot their classmates.
Q. Today we give you a weapon as a symbol that power and responsibility can never be separate, in the expectation that you will live your life responsibly. What does that mean?
A. When Confucius was asked if there was one word by which a person could live their life he replied with a question, "Is not Reciprocity such a word?". To reciprocate is to respond to others in a manner appropriate to their treatment of us, I believe that this is to act responsibly.
Q. When Lucius Cornelius Sulla died, he chose as his epitaph, "No friend ever aided me, no enemy ever wronged me, whom I have not repaid in full". Is this not reciprocity? Is this responsible behavior.
A. Reciprocity is commonly called the Golden Rule and it has been stated in different ways. Rabbi Hillel and Confucius both stated it as "Do not do unto others what you would not have done unto you", Jesus stated it as, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", Sulla may be considered to have said, "Do unto others as they do unto you". While I believe that all three statements are appropriate under some circumstances, Sulla's may be considered the inferior one, as it sets you under the authority of others.
Q. How does Sulla's statement set you under the authority of others, while the other two do not?
A. Jesus, Rabbi Hillel, and Confucius all provide a rule of personal conduct based on your own desires and wish for a good life and good relations with others. Sulla tells you to treat others as they treat you, making you govern your actions by their treatment of you and denying your right to choose your own actions. Following Rabbi Hillel, Confucius and Jesus, you take the initiative, following Sulla, you give that initiative to others. Epictetus would have said that Sulla's rule makes you a slave of passion.
Q. But did not Confucius agree with Sulla. When asked if it was good to return good for evil he rejected the idea and said that if you return good for evil, then what do you return for those who do you good. He maintained that sons should avenge their fathers, that you should return justice for evil.
A. There is a difference between justice and vengeance. Justice is retribution meted out with reason and measure. Vengeance is retribution in a state of passion. Men are unwise when acting on their passions. Serving your passions makes you a slave of them. To seek vengeance rather than justice is the act of a slave.
Q. So, you believe that it is right to punish those who wrong you, but wrong to be a slave of passion. How do you get justice without serving passion.
A. To avoid the rule of passion, it is right to have a third party arbitrate disputes. In our society we delegate retribution to the state. It is right to submit differences to be arbitrated by a third party who not being personally involved may act with greater rationality.
Q. Yet there are those who will not act responsibly. They will wrong and abuse others because they think it makes them important or strong.
A. Such men are the slaves of their passions, ruled by feelings, not by reason. Their actions are not important to a civilized person.
Q. Still, should you not retaliate against such men, prove to them that you are tough and important.
A. If I were to give respect to the opinions of slaves, and act on passions myself, passions inspired by the actions of slaves, then I would make myself the slave of a slave. Even though I killed them, I would have diminished myself. I will ignore the actions of slaves and place no value on their opinions of me.
Q. Yet you have said that all three statements of reciprocity are correct in certain circumstances. When is "Do not do unto others what you would not have done unto you" correct.
A. It is correct when dealing with strangers, persons in whose life you have no concern. You should respect their ways and not seek to impose your judgements on them. As you expect them to respect your right to make your own choices.
Q. When is, "Do unto others what you would have done unto you." correct?
A. When dealing with others that you know and who share certain personal or professional values. Treat your parents as you would want your children to treat you. Treat your wife as you would desire to be treated. Treat your subordinates as you would have your superiors treat you and treat your superiors as you would have your subordinates treat you. Set an example in a relationship, professional or personal of what you yourself desire from others.
Q. When is Sulla right, when is it right to do unto others as they do unto you?
A. When Civilization fails. There are times when barbarians, slaves of their passions, assault others. When there is no time to seek a third party, then the arbitration of civilized people is impossible, and the abuse of your person or others dependent on you is imminent, then you return force with force and the threat of deadly force with deadly force.
Q. But never when there is time for other options?
A. Never.
Q. Your understanding of responsibility
is sound. Take up your weapon, Young Adult, as a symbol of your new responsibility.
Act wisely and with restraint. Seek the good life that comes from
ruling yourself with reason and do not become a slave of passion.
Affirmations
of Right Desire
Top Affirmations
One of the most offensive ceremonies of
Christianity is the confessional or Sacrament of Reconciliation. It is
offensive because it places one person in judgement and punishment of another.
Many persons are not willing to undergo this humiliation, and indeed believe
that persons who do are emotionally ill.
There is another way to look at it. Let us look at it as an attempt at behavior modification. A formal attempt to help a person improve themselves. Periodically you admit to someone else that you are not perfect and want to change and become better in some way. This symbolic act, bringing your problems out of yourself and to the attention of another probably helps cement your intent to change. Positive reinforcement of the desired change from others probably helps to accomplish this change. This is the Affirmation of Right Desire. Unlike other Churches, the Church of Civilization does not dictate changes and moral standards, aside from promoting civil behaviors. The Church of Civilization does support the personal desire to improve and change when one recognizes a problem and in the Affirmation of Right Desire offers a formal recognition and support for such personally chosen positive changes. Changes can be anything from quitting smoking, quitting drinking, achieving weight loss, exercising regularly, or whatever the member of the Church chooses. Note, it is the member of the Church who makes these decisions on their own behavior with respect towards themselves, not the Church. The Church only offers understanding and support through the agency of the Speaker and the other members. Important Note before going further, it is worth noting that depending on the circumstances, the information communicated during this affirmation is as legally confidential as that communicated during confession. This has been tested in various ways in the courts. This is a heavy responsibility, be thoughtful before taking it on. For the public affirmation discussed below, ensure that the group discusses this and it's implications, and establishes a clear standard acceptable to them of confidentiality before a revealing any personal secrets.
Now, in the old days Christians burnt each other at the stake over differences in the formal ceremonies involved in this ritual. Let us not get silly here. It can be either a private action with the member of the church discussing his problem with the Speaker, and the Speaker recommending reading, such as the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius to help the church member get his mind where the member wants it, or a public action as discussed later. Virtually all the techniques of meditation, yoga, group therapy, etc. can be integrated into church practice under the umbrella of this affirmation. That includes martial arts and martial sports training.
Readings
It is a few months since I typed these
notes, and I should like to discuss reading and various authors.
These recommended readings as originally envisioned imitated the prayers
assigned by a Priest giving penance. The idea being to reread a given
passage over and over to set the mind on what it says. This is a
psychological exercise imitating penance without the element of guilt,
but with the recognition of a personal desire to change something that
the church member is not satisfied with in themself.
Marcus Aurelius
Marcus Aurelius is great for this, as
he is highly agnostic was a Roman Emperor, and therefore someone to listen
to, and wrote the "Meditations" while fighting
wars in defense of Civilization. These meditations were actually
written on the battlefield before battling Barbaric Hordes of Germans (the
Marcomanni). Considering the troubles he faced while writing these
meditations, the troubles facing the person reading them generally fade
a bit in importance. Which is a good thing. Not to be overemphasized
as it might seem to trivialize those problems, but a good thing about achieving
perspective on ones personal problems. Like a lot of historical works
of this nature, the Meditations are relatively short, somewhat muddled
and repetitive, and sometimes a bit obscure. The fact that some of
his passages may be repetitious or obscure is why recommending specific
passages might be a good idea.
Confucius
Confucius is also a champion of civilization.
He carefully avoided talking about spiritual matters, and limited his comments
to personal ethics and the needs of governing a state. The Analects
are relatively short, and like the Meditations repetitious, but full of
wisdom. It is worth noting that some of the actions described require
translation to explain why they were considered significant. A translation
with discussion is recommended, or specific readings with intent explained.
Lao Tse
Lao Tse represented the mystical as opposed
to the Secular in the conflict over religious philosophy in China.
Taoism was the mystical opponent to Confucius secular philosophy
until Buddhism entered China. Still, the Tao of Lao Tse is an agnostic
work. While some translations translate Tao as God, this is not accurate.
The Tao is about faith, very much in the sense that faith is used in the
Church of Civilization. It is a nameless, undefined, quality which
accomplishes mysteriously.
The Tao of Lao Tse is somewhat obscure to some of his translators. How do you describe a feeling never experienced? How do you describe music to the deaf? How do you describe color to the blind? So it is to describe Tao or Faith to those unexperienced in it. Modern science is beginning to find a part of the brain which focuses on the separation of the self from surroundings. This is quieted in meditations like Tao and Buddhism.
The exercise of thought is physical to masters of thought. Ideas have a feeling, a weight, a difficulty, friction, heat, all physical attributes. It takes energy and effort to understand and refine them. Chess players lose weight during tough matches. Mathematicians develop tremendous minds. Argue with one sometime. Feel the impact of their words as they grasp ideas and slam them back at you. It is very much like a desperate tennis volley. This is one of the reasons that Archimedes, Euclid, etc. are recommended as mental exercise all year long for Speakers and Deacons.
Likewise with faith. It has a feel, a weight, an essence which can be felt, but cannot be clearly described to those who have not exercised it. The Tao of Lao Tse is an attempt to describe this. As such an attempt it is a worthwhile study to those seeking to acquire faith. To a martial artist, a championship athlete, or others who have devoted great effort to perfection in difficult tasks, the parts of the Tao which are obscure to the scholar are the most clear.
Visualize a figure skater, moving with great rapidity and no effort, grace and energy without apparent exertion yet consider the extreme discipline and training needed for this. This is Tao.
There are many advantages to the psychologist, the doctor, the martial artist, the police officer, in understanding Tao. They come only with difficulty and practice.
The Tao can also be understood as philosophy. Sir Francis Bacon in the New Organon discusses mastering nature by obeying nature. Only by perfect obedience to the laws of aerodynamics can a plane master the air and men fly. The master is the servant. The Heavenly Emperor is the servant of his people. The contradictions of the Tao are philosophy and can be understood as such. They are also descriptions of the feel of operating a certain part of the brain and can be approached as such. The Tao of Lao Tse is very much worth studying and pondering. The Church of Civilization does not affirm or deny the existence of the Tao outside the personal psychological experience of it which meditation may bring.
I of, course, am only an ignorant westerner
and understand nothing of which I am speaking.
PRIVATE. Other meditations are possible and the assistance of the Speaker is not required. He is there to help with recommendations and to provide another person to affirm the desired change, making the statement that much more important to the person desiring to change. The actual work is done by the person desiring change and may involve meditation or prayer techniques drawn from various sources. The use of such a prayer technique in private does not mean it should not be used in a group affirmation.
Light of Faith meditationTopAffirmations
Repeat as often as desired in any given sitting
I have Faith in the power of Faith (repeated
3 times)
My body is filled with the light of
faith.
My body glows with the light of faith.
Faith drives out unwanted thoughts
Faith drives out unwanted desires.
Healing.TopAffirmations
I have faith in the power of faith (repeated
thrice)
My body is filled with the light of
faith
My body glows with the light of faith
Faith heals the troubled spirit.
Faith heals the troubled flesh.
While doing these meditations focus on the light actually filling your body and glowing emerging from your pores. Visualization is recognized as key in producing effects. Weight lifters like Arnold Schwartzenegger swear by it. Oxygen burns to fuel the body, this generates heat. The light and glow as you breathe in and out are symbolic of healthy metabolism. More, focusing on healing causes healing.
Doctors with poor bedside manners might try the first meditation above to drive negative thoughts and attitude out of themselves before attending a patient.
MealsTopAffirmations
Individual members may choose to pray
before eating alone, to settle their minds, rid themselves of anger and
aid their overall health. A simpler version of the above prayer will do.
Ceremonies speak to the subconscious emotional or animal side. Actions
like eating are fundamental survival behaviors, and the manner in which
we eat touches our subconscious directly. Actions like prayer before meals
setting the mood in which we eat are important ways of speaking to our
subconscious mind.
Prayer at Meals
"Let this food symbolize all that enters
me."
"As with the food, so with all positive
and negative influences in my life."
"Let the nourishment of this food strengthen
my placebo."
"Let nothing in this food strengthen
my Nocebo."
"As I pray to strengthen the positive
elements in this food, "
"So may the positive in what I experience
in life have a strong effect on me."
"As I pray that the negative elements
in this food have little effect on me,"
"So may the negatives I encounter daily
effect me little."
"Let my Placebo be strong and my Nocebo
weak, or entirely gone."
Sleep Affirmations
This is not a meditation or prayer before
sleep, though such is entirely logical as a way of focusing the mind before
letting the subconscious take control. The Meditation on the light
of faith healing and driving out unwanted thoughts and desires above will
do well enough for that. This is about getting to sleep, and it works
most of the time. Starting at your toes say to yourself, my toes
are warm, my toes are asleep. Proceed my feet are warm, my feet are
asleep. My ankles are warm, my ankles are asleep. Continue
until you get to your head. Your body will relax and feel comfortable
and asleep. Your mind may run on for a bit, but let it, even if you
lie in bed without really losing consciousness, your body will rest, and
generally, you will drop off to sleep. On a really bad night, it
may be on and off, but it generally works.
Emotional Peace
How can you achieve emotional peace? I suspect that the answer
lies in those behaviors traditionally related to salvation. I.E.
those behaviors traditionally related to saving one's soul were probably
given that significance because they provided relief from the problems
of life, from self hatred, and contempt. There are three of these,
'keys of salvation', not the Christian trilogy of faith, hope, and love;
but a set of behaviors fairly universal in most human societies.
1) The Golden Rule. This is not generally considered so much a key to salvation as a guide to ethical behavior. Still, it is one of the basics of salvation. I believe it was the philosopher Thales about 600 years before Christ who was asked how to avoid Hades and replied, "Do not blame in others what you do not blame in yourself". This statement neatly illustrates the relationship between the Golden Rule and Christs command, "Judge not lest you be judged". You may successfully maintain a double standard, judging others actions as evil unless you do the same thing and then it is alright, but your subconscious very probably does not buy into this as easily. To live at peace with yourself, judge yourself by the same standards you apply to others.
2) Asceticism. Asceticism is universally associated with powerful spirits, salvation, and the acquisition of magical and psychological powers. The opposite of ascetism is indulgence. Indulging yourself is an act of weakness. Every time you indulge yourself, you choose to bow to another power, passion. Those who can ignore the cold, eat what they choose and not what tempts them, etc. have a greater sense of self mastery, and are not as tormented by desire. Asceticism can easily become another form of self-indulgence as people discipline themselves unhealthily, many eating disorders are of this nature. The practice of controlling your own behavior and choosing what is right is an important personal skill and discipline, and should be practiced, but not carried to fanatic lengths. Martial arts, yoga, moderate fasting, giving up meat, etc. are all methods of exercising the will power, which is the result of ascetisim practiced in moderation.
3) Love. OK, St. Paul got one of them right. It is easier to love yourself if you can find things to love in others. It is easier to forgive yourself if you can forgive others. In this sense, Love is a subset of the Golden Rule, treat others with the degree of tolerance and understanding that you yourself desire, seek to find something to love in humanity while recognizing human faults. You will be a happier person.
Om Mani Padme HumAffirmations
I ran into this in a Science Fiction novel years ago. I believe
it was Stranger in a Strange Land by Heinlein, though I cannot swear to
it. It was called the Money Hum. It is a good phrase to repeat
over and over for general rest and mediation when idle for a few minutes
during the day. A few months ago, I was in extreme pain. It
lasted for about three days and then I pissed a kidney stone about 1/8
inch in diameter. The pain of doing this has been compared to childbirth.
I don't know about that. My GrandMother claimed that she never had
difficulty during childbirth. Other women swear that it is the worst
pain in the history of mankind. Pissing a kidney stone probably hurts
worse than childbirth for some women and less than childbirth for others.
During this painful ordeal I naturally couldn't sleep, so I did the money
hum. Rolling and vibrating the sylables in my mouth was distracting
enough that it distracted my mind from the pain and let me rest.
It is just another trick in handling life.
More on this mantra can be found at http://www.dharma-haven.org/tibetan/meaning-of-om-mani-padme-hung.htm
PUBLIC. TopAffirmations
It can also be a public ceremony like
that of Alcoholics Anonymous. Alcoholics Anonymous seems to have raised
the art of public confession and reinforcement of desired behavior changes
to the most effective form available in the world today, thus bringing
about a whole host of imitators. Let us not be ashamed to imitate success.
It is worth noting that one of the problems with a public confession of personal problems is that it can easily turn into a public prosecution. In order for this procedure to have the desired effect, the public hearing the confession should not be judgemental, or interested in feeling superior to the confessee. Thus, the Speaker should guage the attitude of his congregation, and ensure that only persons with serious problems or a serious interest in self improvement should use this affirmation and thus be a part of the 'public' hearing the confession. That being said it is possible that every Church of Civilization with a large enough membership should maintain a group dedicated to Affirmation of Right Desire with procedures modeled after other 12 step programs, affirming faith in faith rather than in a Higher Power, and reinforcing the desired changes of participants. Unlike other 12 step programs this one is general purpose, and any desired change can be promoted here. The emphasis of the Church is on promoting positive thought and attitude, and many negative behaviors are driven by a negative perception of life. At least two exercises common in Christianity may be added as standard practices for the group Affirmation of Right Desire. These are counting blessings and looking for the good. People get anxious and upset over all the negatives in their life. Taking time to look at the good things they have, to count their blessings relieves this emotional load. It is not necessary to give thanks as the Church has no one to give thanks to, but it is necessary to review the good things in life, in order to reduce the impact of the bad. Doing this in private, or in a group will have a positive effect on a persons life and health. More generally, looking for the good in the world will have the same effect. Christians sometimes look at all the things in the world and try to explain how it was all created by God for man. The good in lions, in spiders, etc. Mentioning different things and focusing on how they are good and not bad, or how even the worst things seem to produce some good as well as evil changes the minds focus from the negative to the positive. Again, the church does not maintain that God created these things for mans good. Rather, it simply focuses on trying to see the good in the world and promoting a more positive world view. Positive world view and emotional and physical health are related.
Marriage
and Same Sex Unions
Top Affirmations
Marriage has already
been discussed to some degree. The Church of Civilization has no objection
to Same Sex Unions. The Church of Civilization does not mandate moral values.
The Church of Civilization teaches civil values. As long as you are not
hurting anyone else, your behavior is no concern of the Church. Out of
respect to tradition we differentiate in name, but not form between Marriage
and Same Sex Unions. Traditional ceremonies may be modified to produce
a traditional marriage affirmation. Values to be promoted are similar in
same sex unions. The assumption is that a union between sexual partners
intended to be permanent has parenthood as one of its goals. This Affirmation
should emphasize responsibilities between the partners to each other and
to their natural or adopted children. Society gives formal recognition
to a union and expects that the union will serve Societies purposes. I.E.
promote stability, limit the spread of STDs, and provide a stable environment
for children to grow up. If partners have no wish to do these things, then
there is no reason for society or the Church of Civilization to formally
or legally recognize their union. In other words you get what you pay for.
If you are not prepared to give to society, society has no reason to give
to you. If your union contributes nothing to society, then it deserves
no special mark or support from society.
There may be some questions in some readers minds about parenting and same sex unions. I do not dictate a doctrine or rule, but I will discuss the issue briefly. The arguments against such parenting is that same sex partners are likely to set an example of such sexual behavior to their children, or may be more inclined to sexually abuse their adopted children than other parents. Examples don’t seem to mean much as most same sex parents grew up in heterosexual households. The second one is not substantiated by any studies I am aware of. It is worth noting that homosexuals seem to have higher than average standards of living than others. Big business advertisers believe this, and put their money into advertising accordingly, greed is a human trait that can be relied upon to point to facts when profit is involved. So they will on average be able to provide a materially superior home environment for their children. How can we refuse them the right to parent when we allow such a right to persons of below average intelligence who have demonstrated problems providing a healthy home environment. The arguments against same sex parents apply equallly to minorities, couples of different race or religion, persons of extreme intelligence, and persons of low intelligence. Many situations provide special challenges to the parents. That is insufficient reason to deny them the right to parent.
Affirmation
of Respect and Good Will
Top Affirmations
There is a need to say goodbye, to provide
closure when someone well known dies. This is the Affirmation of Respect
and Good Will. It is a ceremony in which the deceased are recognized for
their good qualities, and the attendees affirm their respect and good will
towards the departed.
Affirmation
as a Speaker
Top Affirmations
The Roman Catholic Church counts joining
the Priesthood as one of the Seven Sacraments. There is no reason the Church
of Civilization should not similarly celebrate a persons officially becoming
a Speaker. However, the Church of Civilization is not a hierarchical organization.
There are no Bishops, Arch-Bishops, Cardinals and no Pope. Congregations
accept or reject a Speaker according to their Community Standards. This
is pretty much the way Judaism and some Protestant Churches do it. It is
worth noting that Affirmation as a Speaker might be a formal ceremony of
acceptance of that Speaker by the Congregation, or a recognition of his
having comepleted the requirements to become a Speaker. A similar Recognition
would be appropriate for Deacons after they have completed reading "The
Story of Civilization".
Taken in order we have 1) Welcome 2) Responsibility 3) Faith followed by a communal meal 4) Right Deisire 5)Union or Marriage 6) Respect and GoodWill and 7)Affirmation as a Speaker. Of the Seven Sacrements of the Catholic Church the only one not imitated is last rites or final unction. This is not appropriate to an Agnostic Church which claims no knowledge of an afterlife. On the other hand, the funeral service is not formally recognized as a sacrament by the Roman Catholic Church as the person is already dead. Still, I think this is a pretty good list of basic occassions on life where some kind of formal recognition by ones peers and chosen associates is necessary and desirable.
Of a
Church Organization
Top
As noted above, the church has no pope,
no hierarchy so to speak. However, some sort of organization is advisable.
One observes Baptists coming into a new town going to one church after
another until they find one that fits what they are used to and like. Catholics
have less of a problem with this, as their services are pretty well uniform.
Some uniformity of practice is advisable. I suggest a Senate of Civilization,
(Neat Name Eh). Senator meaning elder, and such a body meeting to discuss
standards. However, it should be an advisory body. The Speaker should not
enforce the standards of the Senate on the Congregation. Rather the Congregation
should enforce them on the Speaker. I.E. if the Congregation desires that
the Speaker should conform to suggested standards more closely, then he
should do so or seek employment elsewhere. If they prefer his style, then
that is their choice. The Church should seek to avoid being split up into
a thousand denominations, not by attempting to enforce absolute uniformity
of standards, but by tolerating such deviations from the normal form as
are chosen by its members.
You will notice that this puts a lot of power in the Congregation. The Church will probably need the support of prominent local citizens, as well as donations. A local council of such citizens will therefore probably pass on the acceptability of the Speaker. So, the Speaker is under pressure to please his Congregation. Of course, a coach or teacher cannot do his or her job by just pleasing their students. The Speaker has an obligation to speak unpleasant truths in his weekly sermons. There is a tradeoff here. Phocion of Athens was visiting a King and the King asked Phocion why he did not speak to flatter him. Phocion replied, "I can be either your friend or your flatterer, not both". A Speaker must hold this in mind when doing his job. His Congregation must also hold this in mind. If they want a real Speaker, they will accept one. If not, they do not deserve one.
Songs
of Civilization
Top
I will here modify the lyrics to classic
hymns to traditional tunes for some Songs of Civilization. This might
seem unethical unless you know the history of religious music. It
is virtually all the common property of mankind. The Catholic Church
uses songs written by Luther in its hymnals and Lutherans use traditional
Catholic songs. The songs themselves were frequently put to tunes
familiar to the common people, sometime drinking songs and other bawdy
ditties given a new and more sacred role. In building on this body
of work largely by borrowing what went before me, I simply follow an ancient
and time honored tradition.
TopA
Mighty Fortress is Our Faith
Done to the music of A Mighty Fortress
is Our Lord.
Originally written by Martin Luther during
the Reformation
Verse 1
A mighty fortress is our faith, A
Bulwark never failing
Our strengthener above the flood
Of
Earthly Woe prevailing. The
Earth and Raging Sea, Re-
Lease their powers free; Strong
Faith denies despair and shields us from
a-
Fright. A strong faith will protect
us.
Verse 2
Here Crystal Rivers flow along, Their
Bracing waters swelling,
The waters of faith refreshing.
A city where there is no wrong, with
Reason and Faith brimming.
If kings and rulers rage, And
man his wars will wage, Faith
is our hope and shield, Just reason
ne'er to
yield. A strong Faith will sustain us.
Verse 3
Civil ways and works, delight us all,
Make
days of peace achieving.
Thy reasoned choice can still the sword,
and
ways of wrath prevailing. With
strong faith and reason, We
seek the right and good. No
man need ever fear, the strength of faith
is
near. A strong faith will defend
us.
TopFaith
of Our Parents
done to the music of Faith of our Fathers
Verse 1
Faith of our parents, living still,
In spite of dungeon, fire, and sword.
O how our hearts beat high with joy,
Whene'er we hear that glorious word.
Chorus
Faith of our parents, (goodly) faith
We will be true to thee to death.
Verse 2
Faith of our parents, we still love
Both Friend and Foe in all our strife.
And preach thee too as love knows how
By Kindly word and virtuous life.
Verse 3
Faith that our parents, wisdom taught.
Shall keep our country close to thee.
And through the truth that comes from
thought
We shall prosper and be free.
TopSweet
Hour of Prayer
W.W. Walford and Wm. B. Bradbury
published in Christian Hymns for the Use
of Young Peoples Societies, Sunday Schools and Church Services
Eden Publishing House 1908
No copyright is shown for this song, other
songs in the volume have individual copyright information.
Naturally the words have been changed
to suit the church.
Verse 1
Sweet hour of prayer! sweet hour of prayer!
That calls me from a world of care,
And bids me at my faiths home make all
my wants and wishes known,
In seasons of distress and grief my heart
has often found relief
And oft escaped the darkness snare by
thy return, sweet hour of prayer.
Verse 2
Sweet hour of prayer! Sweet hour of prayer!
Thy wings shall my petition bear
To faith whose power and strong effect
engage the waiting heart to rect'
And since faith gives me cause to hope,
believe the faith and trust the hope.
I'll shed in faith my every care, and
wait for thee, sweet hour of prayer.
Verse 3
Sweet hour of prayer! Sweet hour of prayer!
May I thy consolation share
Till from faith and reasons fair height
I view my hope and take my flight.
The weights of life I'll drop, and rise
to seize my faiths strength as my prize
And shall while living life so fair, Thank
you, Thank you, sweet hour of prayer.
Some Final Comments
It is worth noting that from Plato to Voltaire, political philosophers have acknowledged the usefulness of organized religion in promoting moral behavior. Atheism as a belief system has made it a policy to attack organized religion as the source of all social evils. This means that Atheism is political foolishness and practiced mostly as a form of hatemongering. Agnostics do not tend as strongly to hatred as skeptics and atheists. Skeptics and Atheists do tend to be emotionally driven in their actions. This church design incorporates all of my criticisms of Atheism as a social and political force by answering them. It creates a church for skeptics, atheists, and agnostics which is not a hate based cult, based on attacking other religions, but which duplicates the social positives of religion, and in all other ways answers my practical social and political criticisms of atheism.
As such it is a gift to my skeptical, agnostic, and atheist friends. A church they can belong to, and enjoy. It is also a subtle criticism of atheism as it exists today. I was intrigued by the idea of the church and felt that criticism should be positive. By designing a church that answered my attacks on atheism I hoped to show the positive side of those critical attacks. I hoped to demonstrate how they could be used to produce an improved form of organization for those with no belief in the supernatural.
Appendices
Nothing in these appendixes is official church policy, these are only
some notes and ideas on various issues.
Top
The US government is a product of the political theory of the time of
its creation. That political theory included
Natural Rights and the Social Contract. Today, many Americans
like to claim that there is no such thing as a
Natural Right, and that the idea of a Social Contract is flawed.
It is possible to disagree with these modern notions
and maintain that the success of a Government formed largely on the
basis of these theories is itself a validation of
these ideas.
Both of these ideas seem to have their origin in Hobbes ‘Leviathan’.
Both can be said to be implicit in Aristotle’s
“Politics”.
The major objection to these two ideas has nothing to do with their
validity. It has to do with their use. Various
persons have used these ideas to justify everything, from a natural
right to own a Cadillac to mob rule and a
totalitarian state. It is worth noting that there is little difference
between mob rule and a totalitarian state, as the
one leads inevitably to the other. Like other ideas, these two
ideas have in success acquired a certain sacred impact. Like
other sacred objects they have been used to sanctify all manner of
folly. In rebellion against this foolishness, many
fools have chosen to attack the ideas instead of the foolishness itself.
Natural Law is as old as philosophy, philosophy invented natural law
to attempt to provide a rational basis for moral
action when religion failed. Aristotle in his ‘Politics’ proposed
that states that enabled their citizens to live the
good life were good and that states that did not were perverted.
Implicit in this idea is the idea of natural rights.
One might say that the original natural right was the right to seek
the good life in accordance with natural law. Hobbes
expressed a more totalitarian view, allowing that the state was always
right, as it was the source of law. Though he
coined the idea of natural rights and held that those who exercised
these rights in defiance of the state were not
morally wrong. I agree with Aristotle, not Hobbes. I see
the state as an instrument created by the citizens for an
implicit purpose, if it uses its power in a manner that violates this
purpose; it is a criminal exercise of power.
This brings us to the social contract. If a state can be judged
to be a criminal state, then the citizens can consent or refuse
consent to that state’s authority. If the element of consent
is present then a contract exists. Hobbes requires consent, as
the state of nature he hypothesizes is far uglier than a very bad state,
Hobbes opinions were shaped by the revolution
that tore England apart in his lifetime. Aristotle who knew a
long history of revolution in ancient Greece is not so
arrogant. Consent is implicit in his politics, and so, therefore,
is the Social Contract.
Critics of the Social Contract will say that it is nonsense, as they
never consented to their government, they were born
with it. The fact that revolution occurs renders this argument
nonsense. Revolting is the act of withdrawing
consent. If consent can be withdrawn it exists in reality, as
Aristotle implicitly recognized.
Another argument against the idea of consent is that it is a philosophers
creation and why should a person accept a
state based on what philosophers think he would have consented to.
This argument is amusing, as the alternative is
to accept a state in which no concern at all is given to that persons
consent. In which is the person given greater
dignity? Is his dignity greater when his consent is discussed
and given weight, or is it greater when it is simply ignored?
Critics of the Social Contract will say that men could never have consented
to a state, as they never exist solitary in the
absence of the state. This is primarily an attack on the Social
Contract as proposed by Rousseau in his book ‘The
Social Contract’. It is invalid for three reasons.
One reason is that society is different from the state. While
man may have always lived in a social unit, that unit does
not possess the powers of a state, and therefore could not constrain
him as forcefully as the state. The state is a
dangerous creation; the discussion of natural law and natural rights
is concerned with the legitimacy of the
exercise of power by the state. The state does not exist in the
absence of that power. That power of courts, armies,
police, secret police, money, property laws and the other apparatchik
of power do not exist in many tribal societies.
Man did indeed exist in the absence of these developed forms of power,
which are constrained (in the political theory on which America is based)
by the idea of natural rights and natural law.
A second reason is that even if man did always exist in the presence
of a state of some sort this does not preclude his
right to choose a better over a worse state. His right to choose
a better state, a state, which shows greater respect for
his Natural Rights, is not denied by the idea that he has always existed
in some sort of social organization.
A third reason is based on logic. Hypothesizing man in the absence
of a state is a useful step in analyzing what a state
should be. As a useful step in such logical analysis, it is a
valid step, and its use does not invalidate the idea of a
Social Contract.
Critics of the Social Contract will say that it is an empty and meaningless construct, by itself. Any standard is good under the Social Contract, as long as it is accepted by society. Slavery, polygamy, torture, etc. are all acceptable as long as Society accepts them. This is true of all ethical systems. The Golden Rule being a classic example. If you are willing to be robbed from by those more cunning than yourself, then robbing others is acceptable. If you are willing to accept being beaten into submission by the strong, then beating others into submission if fine. If you accept being lied to by others then lying to others is fine. In many societies, these standards have applied and been accepted. All ethical systems are empty until related to reality in some manner. The right way of doing this is looking at human nature, man in a state of nature (hunter gatherer societies) and deducing natural law, or bioethics.
As you can see, the arguments against the Social Contract all apart
rather easily when looked at practically. Consent
is implicit in the fact of revolution. Analyzing what persons
would consent to is a step towards a state that treats its
citizens better. This analysis will also, if done properly, help
to guard against causing a revolution. Analyzing and
safeguarding the Natural Rights of Citizens as Sovereign Citizens of
a Social Contract is a necessary step in the
rational design of a state. Maslows Hierarchy or Pyramid of Human Needs
is a good place to start when looking at laws and practices to see if they
violate human nature. Looking at man in a state of nature is useful,
and history is a powerful source of guidance.
Reason implies choice. A person can choose something for emotional
or logical reasons. Choice does not imply reason,
but reason implies choice. A state which does not incorporate the idea
of consent or choice of its citizens, by guarding
their natural rights cannot be considered to be a rational state.
Consent, Natural Rights, the Social Contract are
necessary for any state to be considered rational in design. Any state
that does not incorporate these elements either
implicitly or explicitly must be considered an irrational system.
A natural right may be defined as those things, which a citizen would
not sacrifice when consenting to become a
Sovereign Citizen in the Social Contract. A citizen would not
consent to having his needs arbitrarily or unjustly denied
him. The needs of citizens determined by nature, analyzed by
looking at man in a state of nature determine his natural
rights. Rights which no state can justly deny him. These
needs are those things, which are inherent to man in a state
of nature. They are not those things, which he must work to achieve.
They include the opportunity to work to achieve
them.
Some Natural Rights you probably won’t like.
The Right to Vengeance: (Retributive Justice) Reciprocity is the basic
building block of social behavior. If
someone helps you, you help him. If someone hurts you, you hurt
him. This is basic and instinctive. Seeing those
who hurt you hurt in their turn is a natural right. It is not
noble, it is not pretty, but it is just. Persons denied this right
feel like their person-hood has been attacked. They feel as though
the state has treated them as second class citizens.
They are likely to take this right into their own hands if they feel
the justice system fails them. It is the role of the State to moderate
and control this behavior. The State cannot abolish it and expect
to survive.
The Right to set Community Standards: In nature people lived together
in small tribal groups with
shared values. People need this kind of social environment. If
they are forced to accept behaviors they find immoral and
offensive, they are denied this right. At the level of a small
town or neighborhood, people have the right to by common
consent outlaw public display of things they find morally offensive.
The Right to Freedom from Destructive Taxation Taxes do not exist in
nature. They are one of the powers of
the state. The philosopher asks, would a person have joined the
social contract knowing that taxation would be used as a
weapon to destroy wealth he acquires by his own actions. It is unreasonable
to assume that he would. He would
consent to fair taxation, but not to taxes designed to reduce his socioeconomic
status.
The Right to Crash and Burn
Negative feedback is just as essential to sanity as positive feedback.
Pain teaches you that you made a mistake.
Lepers loose the ability to feel pain in hands and feet due to damage
to peripheral nerves. They fail to notice small
injuries. These become infected due to failure to be aware,
and loss of fingers and effected tissue may occur. Without
negative feedback, an organism is blind and unaware of progressive
deterioration. This is true of behavior as well.
Socialist systems attempt to deny their citizens negative feedback
by guaranteeing outcome rather than opportunity.
This allows the citizens to develop negative behaviors as a group.
This is why socialist and communist systems fail.
This is similar to the enabling behaviors of a family with an alcoholic
member. Until the member recognizes the
problem, he cannot be helped. Helping him pretend there is not
problem only makes it worse. People test to see what
the limits are. If a positive outcome is guaranteed, they never
find what they are looking for. Some people need to experience
real failure before they will change. Preventing that, guaranteeing
a minimum success regardless of their own efforts or behaviors is damaging
to them and to the state. People need the right to fail; the right
to experience the consequences of failure. People need the right
to crash and burn.
The Right to do Drugs, this is sort of a subset of the right to
crash and burn. The Social Contract is a treaty between
Sovereign Citizens. It does not possess any legitimate authority
to tell these Sovereign Citizens how to live their
lives for their own good. That is what the drug laws are all
about. Indeed, it is as irrational to confine an organism that
evolved in an environment full of mind altering food sources in a society
that outlaws them as it would be to
outlaw vitamin C. There is no reason to believe that some of
us do not have a need for these substances in our diet.
This is why prescription antidepressants are such a lucrative industry.
The evidence is that we are adapted to need these
substances occasionally in our lives. Outlawing them is irrational.
The raw plant materials should be available for
use as they would have been in nature.
The Right to a Minimum Wage
Scientists estimate that a hunter gatherer society in the early Mediterranean
area of Mesopotamia would have needed to spend about 6 hours a day gathering
food to provide the basic necessities. 6x7=42, our current work week is
40 hours. Somehow by 'chance' the generally accepted standard of
hours worked for basic jobs is almost exactly equal to those which men
and women would have worked in nature.
More hours than this and it is an imposition of people have imposed on for millenia, but that does not mean that doing so is wise. Less hours than this, and people probably do not get enough work time in for emotional health.
Forty hours a week should provide the basic necessities, food, shelter, and some entertainment. A minimum wage that fails to do this violates human nature and natural law.
A society that insists on violating human nature is like a plane designed
with contempt for the laws of aerodynamics. It will
eventually crash and burn.
Human nature is a little more malleable than the laws of aerodynamics, which means that you can get away with violating it for a few decades before the crash comes, but in the end it is just as unforgiving.
The minimum wage has to keep up with the cost of living to provide the
basic neceissities for a 40 hour work week. There is a basic value for
human labor dictated by natural law (human nature).
The Wealthy as a Class
Top
It is the sad duty of the political philosopher to trash the wealthy
as a class. If you read history, you will find
patterns repeating themselves over and over. One is the pattern
of class war made famous by Marx. Solon’s reform
of the laws of Athens was largely a matter of balancing the power of
wealth versus the brute force of the poor citizens.
Aristotle said that for a Republic to survive it must avoid the creation
of a pauper class. Rome ruled the world for
centuries, and during that time it saw the periodic massacre of the
wealthy by the emperors who derived their power
from the pauper class.
This really sounds like a defense of the wealthy, after all, Solon reformed
Athens laws to forestall revolution and save
them. The Caesar’s murdered them without mercy, confiscating
huge estates and fortunes on a periodic basis.
They were guillotined ruthlessly in the French Revolution, and butchered
without mercy in the Russian and Chinese
revolutions.
That is the problem, this happens over and over and over again, and
the wealthy keep on repeating the same mistakes.
They never learn. As a class, the wealthy are the most contemptible
element of any society. Allowed to exercise
the power of wealth without restraint by the state they grow like a
cancer until the state is destroyed and they perish.
Wealth is created by money flow. Augustus spent money freely,
and the economy of Rome boomed, Tiberius ran a
tight fiscal ship, major banks failed, the economy faltered, and he
was forced to rescue them with grants from the state.
The wealthy, in a competitive free market society contribute to the
flow of wealth. The wealthy do not like a competitive
free market society. They hate competition because it cuts their
profits. They want monopolies. They want low labor
costs. They want to achieve the one-way flow of money.
They want money to flow from others to them. If allowed to do
this, money flow stops. Eventually there is not enough
money outside of the coffers of the wealthy for commerce to occur.
The Roman Emperors corrected this by periodically
massacring large numbers of the wealthy, confiscating their estates,
and spending the money on public works. The
wealthy, being typical of the wealthy as a class, apparently preferred
this to a more reasonable form of taxation.
When this happens, the creation of new wealth by money flow ceases.
It is the circumstance of money flow, creating
competition to get a share of that money that drives a growing economy.
The wealthy, if allowed to do so, will
halt the creation of new wealth.
What do the wealthy gain from halting the creation of new wealth and
creating the conditions that assure they will be
periodically massacred? The answer is sillier than you will believe.
They gain imaginary wealth.
Inflation is when you make twice as much, but have to spend twice as
much to buy anything. This happens to the
wealthy with great regularity. They double their fortune, and
then have to spend twice as much to buy their mansions,
their wines, and other luxuries. They fail to recognize this
as inflation. They fail to realize that their gain in wealth is
imaginary. Yet it is.
All money held by the wealthy is worth less, dollar for dollar in purchasing
power than money held by the poor.
Most of this money is in assets like stocks. On paper a wealthy
person may be worth 80 billion dollars. Let him
attempt to sell that stock and get the money and immediately the value
of the stock goes down. He ends up
worth a fraction of what he was supposed to be worth.
Inflation varies with socioeconomic class. The wealthier you are,
the less each dollar you own is worth.
Those dollars represent a share in the total wealth of society. They
represent ownership in the productive capacity of
society. As such they are dependent on that productive capacity.
Cause it to drop, and real wealth drops as well.
Productive capacity is a function of market size. If the size
of the market drops, so does the production of wealth as a
whole.
The workers are the market. If they cannot afford to buy what
is produced, market size shrinks. When market size
shrinks total wealth shrinks. When that happens, the shares in
that total wealth held by the wealthy shrink in real value.
If the poor get poorer and the wealthy get richer, the wealthy experience
no growth in real wealth. They see
nothing but runaway inflation as they pay more and more for things
worth less and less in real productive value.
This is all relative, and the total inflation experienced varies from
individual to individual depending on individual
holdings. Nonetheless, if the wealth of the wealthy increases
without a similar increase in market size caused
by wealth of the lower classes increasing as well, overall the growth
in wealth is inflationary and unreal. In a free
market economy, the real wealth of the wealthy cannot increase unless
the wealth of society as a whole increases.
So the wealthy destroy the potential for creating new wealth, condemn
themselves to periodic massacre, and do it
all for imaginary money. This is why it is the duty of political
philosophers to trash the wealthy as a class. No
stupider, more self destructive, more contemptible part of society
exists.
Having said this, you might think that I advocate the destruction of
the wealthy. Not so. The wealthy for all
their faults are a necessary part of society. In a state there
will be large accumulations of wealth and power. In a
communist society this is held by the state and administered by bureaucrats.
In a corporation this is divided among
shareholders and administered by officers. If this power is administered
by a bureaucrat he will administer it for his
own gain. To gain greater rank, achieve more perks, or otherwise
serve political vanity. When administered by
officers of a corporation, profit, greed, is the only motivation.
A rich individual is a human being. Large
amounts of wealth in the hands of individuals places a human face on
the power of money. These persons possess
the power as individuals to take up causes, champion rights, and change
the world. They are an important part of the
human potential for greatness. As a class they are the most contemptible
element of society. As individual they are
frequently the most admirable.
Locke argues that there is a limit to the amount of money that an individual
can use. This is true if you think of
human needs being only clothing, shelter, and food. If you recognize
a higher need, the need to accomplish something
in a life. Then there is no limit to the amount of wealth that
a human can use, as there is no limit to the cost of great
deeds. I do not care in the least if in this century America
sees its first trillionaire. There is no upper limit on the
amount of money that a person can administer wisely. The fact
that people are richer now than ever before in the
history of the world is a good thing, not a bad one. In addition to
this, the people need their dreams. One of
these dreams is making it big. Seeing others who have achieved
great wealth spurs people to try for it themselves.
This stimulates growth of new technologies, the creation of new forms
of wealth, the real creation of new wealth.
What is needed is not an attempt to destroy the wealthy or to place
a cap on income or how much wealth an individual
can acquire. What is needed is a limit to poverty, associated
with a requirement of healthy psychology; an association of
gain with effort and work. For our society to endure we must
make desperate poverty virtually nonexistent.
If our society were wise, then the wealthy would be using all the power
of their money to ensure that every American
had bread and circuses earned not by rioting in the streets but by
their willingness to work. The wealthy would
recognize that wealth gained by them as a class without proportional
gains in the rest of society is inflationary and
unreal. The wealthy would realize that a graduated tax system
is a way of controlling that inflation, but that
minimum wage increases are a better way. If the minimum wage
is increased without inflation it increases the size of
the market and the value of the shares of production owned by the wealthy.
Today, providing people with the basics of
life, food, shelter, clothing, and entertainment in the form of cable
TV and internet access is far, far less expensive than
any kind of revolution or the armed guards and police forces needed
to stop desperate people.
The purpose of this essay is to discuss the principles by which a state
may wisely exercise the power of taxation. The idea
being that a state must manage its tax base as wisely as a farmer manages
his farm. Originally I was going to entitle it Tax
Husbandry, but I realized that the simple minded would look at the
title and assume it was about taxing farms.
Estate Taxes
There is an old principle, never touch your capital. Any person
with a fortune knows this rule. You can spend the income from
your capital as you wish, but each time you spend capital you decrease
your future income. The estates of the citizens are the
capital from which they derive their income. Each time their
estates decrease, their income decreases, and the income that the
state may tax decreases as well. So, the principle, never touch
your capital applies to the estates of the citizens. Each time the
state taxes the estates of its citizens it reduces its future tax income.
Let us put this in perspective. Say a citizen has a million
dollars and dies. (all of the figures here are made up to illustrate
the principle) His estate is taxed at 40%. This nets
the state a
one time revenue of 400,000 dollars. A pretty penny. But,
assuming an income of 10%, his heirs income drops to 60,000
dollars a year from 100,000 dollars a year. Assuming a 20% tax,
the income of the state on that income drops from 20,000 to
only 12,000. A net loss of 8,000 a year. 50x8 = 400,000.
So, after 50 years, the state sees a net loss in tax revenue because
of the estate tax. Not so bad you say. Well, it is worse,
as the taxes are graduated. The person making only 60,000 a year
will pay a lower rate of tax than the person making 100,000 a year.
So assume a rate of 10%. The state now only received
6,000 dollars a year, compared to 20,000. A yearly loss in tax
revenue of 14,000 dollars. After 28 1/2 years, the state sees a
loss in tax revenues from that individual caused by the estate tax.
Since most people will live for 40 or 50 years after inheriting
an estate, the state sees a net long term loss in tax revenues in the
lifetimes of the individuals concerned of about half the taxes
they would otherwise have paid. Policies which use estate taxes
to destroy private fortunes are policies that destroy the tax
base of the state. No state which promotes policies designed
to destroy its tax base can long survive. The state which taxes
estates which provide regular high tax revenue based on income from
that estate is like a farmer with a dairy cow which give
more than the average milk. The farmer says, well, this is a
rich cow, so I will kill it to get all its nourishment now, and loses all
the milk he would have received in the future. Estate taxes are
bad management, bad tax husbandry. Taxing estates is like
spending capital. You never spend your capital, only your interest.
You do not tax estates, you tax income.
If estate taxes are such a bad idea from the idea of long term management
of your tax base, why are they so popular. Simply
because of the envy of the poor for the wealthy. The poor do
not see the long term consequences of estate taxes and desire to
reduce the wealthy to their level. (The wealthy are just as stupid
and shortsighted as the poor, they will get theirs later in this
essay). For example, people with money should realize that the
only real safeguard for their wealth is a strong financial
incentive for other powers to let them keep it. So, in the long
run, income taxes that pay substantially more than estate taxes to
the state in the lifetime of the individual are in their best interest.
This is a golden mean, balancing the needs of the state and the
interests of the wealthy. Few of the wealthy realize this, thinking
that the state is something to be manipulated for their profit.
They fail to recognize that a state which answers only the needs of
the wealthy will become so weak that it cannot protect their
fortunes or provide the secure environment needed to do business.
There are other, social as well as financial problems with estate taxes.
Large fortunes are more financially secure than small
fortunes. Some fortunes or estates are fundamentally different
in nature than others. Family owned businesses and farms are
different from estates composed of stocks and bonds. If you charge
a 40% estate tax on a fortune composed of stocks and
bonds, they can be sold, and the family retains the rest. If
you charge a 40% tax or in many cases even a 10% tax on farms or
small businesses, they frequently must be sold, as the cash value of
the assets is far less than the money received annually by the
owners. This destroys small businesses and farms. These
people are the middle class in the classical political philosophy sense
of the word. So estate taxes destroy the middle class.
It is not the difference in wealth between the poor and the wealthy
which produces social chaos and revolution, it is the destruction of
the middle class. When the middle class is destroyed,
society splits into two factions that side which promises the poor,
government handouts in return for votes, and that side which
attempt to desperately hold onto their riches and let the poor starve.
Between these two extreme viewpoints there is no room
for compromise. Factional rivalry and revolution follow.
Where there is a strong middle class, that class promotes an
intermediate solution. A stable society must have a strong middle
class to moderate between the wealthy and the poor. While
small land owners and business owners appear wealthy to the poor, they
are not. They have a lot of property, but their annual
income from that property is not great. They do not live a wealthy
life. They work every day to get by, they face financial
stress and burdens, their debts are tough to face. So they are
sympathetic to the plight of the poor. They have enough
property that oppressive taxation will cause them to lose all they
have, so they are sympathetic to the concerns of the wealthy.
This is the real middle class. A class which can see both sides
of the social conflicts which cause strife in the state. Destroy
them and you destroy the basis of a stable society. Estate taxes
written by the poor to 'equalize wealth' class them with the
really wealthy, and destroy the middle class. This promotes great
evil in the long run.
So, estate taxes are both economically unsound as they destroy the tax
base of the state, and thus will doom any state which
depends on them for income, and as they destroy the middle class and
will thus destroy the only voice really seeking a fair
compromise between the wealthy and the poor. Both will cause
the ultimate failure of the state. Estate taxes are bad taxes.
There is yet a third problem with estate taxes. People die. Corporations
do not die. Very often, when a small business or farm
is sold to pay estate taxes, it is bought by a corporation. Each
time this happens, private ownership of property in the US
decreases and corporate ownership of property increases. Corporations
are absentee landlords. They do not care about
passing the property along to their children. They do not care
about maintaining it. They care only about satisfying their
stockholders by increasing their stocks value or paying dividends.
This leads to short term management of the property. In the
long run, such short term management leads to the destruction of the
property. According to some historians, this is why the
Middle East is made up of deserts today. Thousands of years of
management by absentee landlords, work done by serfs or
slaves or tenants with no personal interest in the land led to its
becoming desertland. In the US today, it will lead to pollution,
abuse, and eventually, to the land and properties being useless and
even dangerous to the people. Eventually, estate taxes will
have the effect of reducing the US to an uninhabitable, poisonous,
desert. The state has an interest in making as many of its
citizens as possible wealthy, so as to have maximum tax base, and in
maintaning and increasing private ownership of property
such as land by families with an interest in its long term management,
to keep it safe for posterity.
Once again, estate taxes are a bad idea.
Taxing the Wealthy
The statement, "Taxing the income of the wealthy does not take any
money away from them" sounds silly. It should be false by
definition. Yet, it is partially true. The wealthy do not
spend their money the same way as other people. The wealthy spend
their money on luxury cars and restaurants to demonstrate their wealth.
They spend their money on collectibles and investments
to grow their wealth. In spending this money, they are spending
in competition with other members of the wealthy class. An
income tax which takes money from their competitors to buy these things
in their income group does not reduce their ability to
buy these things. The simple reason for this is that the other
people bidding on the same merchandise see an equal loss in
income, and all are bidding on the same playing field after the tax
as they would have been before the tax. Total prices paid for
the items sought is less, but the ability to buy them is unchanged.
Therefore, nothing is lost. High tax rates on the wealthy
applied equally reduce the total price paid for the items they buy,
but do not decrease their ability to buy what they want. Low
tax rates on the wealthy increase the prices other wealthy can pay
for the items they want, increase the prices paid, but do not
increase the ability of the wealthy to buy the things they want.
When you pay 2 million dollars for a painting one year, but have
to pay 4 million dollars for a similar painting 5 years later, you
are not seeing growth in real wealth you are seeing inflation. High
tax rates reduce the rate of inflation in the incomes of the wealthy.
They do not necessarily take any real purchasing power
away from the wealthy. So, you can set quite high tax rates,
50% even 75% on the income of the extremely wealthy, and not in
any way effect their real quality of life. Such taxes, justly
administered to all persons in such high tax brackets will only
marginally, if at all effect their ability to buy the luxuries, stocks,
and collectibles that they desire, as they are bidding against
each other. This is only partially true, but its truth increases
with the income of the persons involved, the greater the income, the
truer it is, the less the income the falser it is.
Let us compare that to taxing the poor. Taxes on individuals are
remarkably unjust as compared to taxes on businesses.
Businesses are only taxed on profits, not on the cost of doing business.
Individuals are taxed on total income with a few
marginal deductions. The truth is that every individual is in
business. He produces a commodity, several hours of labor, which
he sells at the best rate he can get. Producing that labor requires
food to maintain strength, shelter and clothes to maintain
health, transportation to get him to work and back. All are legitimate
business expenses which a regular business could deduct
100% of from their taxable income. Individuals are not allowed
to deduct 100% of their rent or mortgage or car payments, or
their clothes and food bills from their incomes before paying taxes.
Yet, all of these are necessary, unavoidable expenses of
producing the commodity, labor, and providing it at the site where
it is required. The tax code discriminates brutally against
individuals in favor of businesses. Now, there is something called
discretionary income. This is that income that a person can
spend as they want, investment, movies, eating out, as opposed to what
they have to spend on basic necessities. As you go
down from the wealthy to the poor this discretionary income decreases
from 90% or more of income to a negative quantity,
where income is less than sufficient for bills and the state must step
in with food stamps so people can eat. Taking money from
the poor takes real money. Taking money from the wealthy takes
money that is less and less real and more and more
inflationary the higher up the income scale you go.
There is a very, very good argument for not taxing the wealthy very
much. Every dollar that the wealthy do not spend as taxes
they spend some other way. Investing that money increases the
size of their estate. This increases their annual income, and this
increases the tax revenues that they will contribute to the state in
the future. See the above paragraphs about estate taxes
again. The money that they invest sometimes goes to research
and development of new products and services and this
increases the real wealth of society. The money that they spend
creates jobs for the poor. Altogether, excessive taxation of the
wealthy is a bad idea. In this same general vein is the issue
of windfall income. A person who makes 1 million dollars once in
their life should be able to keep enough of it to, if managed wisely,
remain well off. Taxing that 1 million in the same way that
you tax the income of someone who makes 1 million every year is unfair
to the person receiving it, and has the same effect as
estate taxes. It reduces the long term tax revenues of the state.
Tax laws should help, not hinder, the creation of substantial
estates. Such estates establish the healthy tax base which a
successful state needs. One time income windfalls should be
averaged over 5 or 10 or 20 years. This is fairer for the individual
concerned and better tax husbandry by the state.
On the other hand, inflation in the wealthy part of society can be a
very very bad thing. As the upper middle class become
wealthy, they begin to invest in stocks and bonds and collectibles.
This has two major negative effects, (and probably several
others I have not observed yet). They invest in the stock market.
The price to earnings ratios of various stocks get sky high.
They make 'money' and get intoxicated with the biggest legal gambling
game in the world. They put more money in. The prices
get higher. Then they lose faith. They start to sell.
The bottom drops out. Billions or trillions of dollars that would
otherwise
have bought consumer goods are erased from the economy. Sales
fall, stocks fall farther. Recession or depression sets in.
Nobody wins. People want to go around talking about this or that
person or family who made a fortune when the crash
happened, but nobody won. If the crash had not happened, the
wealthier would be still wealthier than they are when a crash
happens. Crashes are good for nobody.
The second is more subtle. As more and more people look for more
and more things to invest in as collectibles, more and
more things acquire a cash value as collectibles. Poor people
buy second hand things to get by. When the price of second
hand merchandise goes up because everything is 'collectible' poor people
can no longer get by. They become desperately
poor. This is an invisible kind of inflation. It effects
the very poor, the elderly, and leaves the mainstream alone.
All in all, there is good reason to use taxes to check inflation in
the upper classes. As wealth and income grow, the marginal tax
rate should probably grow along with them. As there is no upper
limit to the amount of wealth an individual should possess,
there is no upper limit to the rate of taxes he should pay. A
balance must be sought.
Everyone should pay taxes
Lots of poor people do not pay taxes. This is a bad thing.
Only taxpayers are 'real' citizens. Those who pay taxes cannot help
but consider those who do not to be inferior. They do not contribute
to the state. Psychologically, a class that does not pay
taxes is an inferior class. The poor must pay taxes, they must
have the legitimate right to say proudly, "I am a taxpaying citizen".
They do not realize this, but as noted before, they are as stupid as
the wealthy. They need to pay taxes for their own good.
Maybe a marginal 5% rate, but they should pay taxes.
Spending taxes
The way in which taxes are spent is just as important as the way in
which they are levied. I am the taxpayer/consumer, and I
pay for everything. The President's salary, Madonna's wardrobe,
food stamps, etc. I pay for it all. I have two ways of paying
for all of these things. I can pay for it by including it in
the price of things I buy, or I can pay for it by letting the government
tax
me and then have the government pay for it.
If I pay for it in the price of things I buy, it is subject to free
market competition which keeps its cost down. If the government
pays for it, it is not subject to free market forces, and its price
can rise without restraint. Theoretically, it is going to cost me
a
lot more if I pay for it through taxes than if I pay for it as a consumer.
Let us take the case of a minimum wage worker, working full time, who
still gets an income so small they they qualify for food
stamps. According the Consumer Reports magazine a few years ago,
the best, most cost efficient charities in the world spent
25 cents on every dollar for admin costs and the other 75 cents went
to the poor. According to a conservative economist I
argue with on the web, for every dollar the government spends on social
welfare programs, 75 cents goes to pay for the
governments admin costs and 25 cents reaches the poor. Now, you
will excuse me if I doubt that the government is as efficient
as the most efficient charitable organizations. You may also
excuse me if I doubt the figures of a conservative economist. I
choose to believe that reality lies somewhere in between and assume
that for every dollar in tax money I spend to help the
poor, 50 cents actually reaches the poor and 50 cents pays for admin
expenses.
So, for the minimum wage worker cited above, for every dollar in food
stamps they receive, I will spend two dollars in tax
money. This is not a good deal. If they are paid a minimum
wage that allows them enough money to actually live, then that cost
will be passed on to me the consumer by the business that employs them.
This means that I will spend around 1 dollar in
increased cost of my purchases, instead of 2 dollars in increased taxes.
Which one sounds like a better deal to you?
Every form of social welfare (giveaway programs) is a form of corporate
welfare. Republicans favor corporate welfare and
Democrates favor social welfare, and they think that they are talking
about different things. The truth is that every form of social
welfare program is a form of corporate welfare.
Every penny that is spent on government giveaway programs is going to
end up in the hands of business. If you subsidize the
minimum wage with food stamps you cut their labor costs. If you
subsidize health care, you cut their health insurance costs. If
you subsidize retirement, you cut their retirement programs cost.
Businessmen are too stupid to see the long range
consequences of their actions, but they are plenty smart enough to
see how to use government subsidies in all sectors to
maximize profits. They have a vested interest, short sighted, in shifting
these costs from their businesses to the government.
So, all of these government subsidies cost me twice as much as they
would if businesses were paying for them in wages and
benefits. Because the rich pay more in taxes than others, they
cost the rich more than they do the poor and middle class. The
rich should be insisting that laws be passed to incorporate these costs
into business costs so that market forces can keep them
down. But the rich are too stupid to think about the consequences
of their actions. They want to maximize the profits of their
business, not lower the cost of social necessities.
The principle here is that the government should never do with giveaway
programs what they can do with minimum wage type
laws. If medical insurance is necessary there should be a minimum
medical coverage law. If retirement insurance is necessary
there should be a minimum retirement insurance law. The government
should enforce these laws not engage in giveaway
programs. This will place the cost of these programs at a place
in the cycle where market forces can control them and keep
them low.
The Market
A free market economy cannot exist without a market for manufactured
goods. The stock market is not the market. The stock
market is legalized gambling and only a very small part of its activities
contributes anything positive to the economy. The market
is those persons gainfully employed enought to be able to buy manufactured
goods. The larger the percentage of the population
so employed the stronger the market. The stronger the market
the stronger the economy. The smaller the percentage of the
population so employed the weaker the market. The weaker the
market, the weaker the economy. The higher the minimum
wage, the larger the number of persons able to participate as members
of the market. The higher the minimum wage the
stronger the economy. Simple. But the wealthy are too stupid
to realize that a low minimum wage means a small market and
eventual economic collapse.
Stock Market Recessions
The stock market began with investors buying parts of ships sailing
to various ports to buy goods and bring them back.
Investors would buy a part interest in the ship and receive a proportional
part of the profits. This is the vital role of the Stock
Market, allowing investors and entrepreneurs to meet so that ventures
can be funded. Trading stocks that have already been
bought does not put any more revenues into the hands of the entrepreneur.
It is a form of gambling. Normally it is a good bet,
but gamblers are not the wisest or most responsible people. Periodically
they bet badly. In the Stock Market they invest and
invest until they lose faith, and then they sell in a panic.
When you buy something for 100 dollars and sell it for 20 you see a net
loss. When the entire market does this, large amounts of money
vanish from the economy. The recent panic is said to have
sucked 1 trillion dollars out of the economy. Money is to the
economy what blood is to the body. It needs to circulate carrying
goods and services with it. When the money supply becomes anemic,
the economy becomes anemic. The state then attempts
to correct this by increasing the money supply. Lower interest
rates increaset the money supply by making it less expensive to
borrow money. Tax cuts increase the money supply by leaving more
money in the hands of consumers. Both are simply means
of increasing the money supply.
There is another way. Balance the books. If that 1 trillion
dollars was real money, then it should not just vanish into thin air.
The government is responsible for maintaining the money supply.
It needs to put that money back into the economy. The
government should make an estimate of the money lost in debacles like
this one and declare that money as tax revenues to be
spent by the government in one time projects. Upgrading military
housing, building a space station, etc. This way the money
will be reinserted into the economy through the purchase of goods and
services, stimulating the economy directly. What about
the investors. Losers is losers and winners is winners.
Stupidity deserves to suffer for mistakes made.
The government should be very very careful in doing this, discuss the
move with trading partners overseas, ensure that it will not
decrease faith in the currency the way that just printing money to
pay for government projects would. The government is not
creating more money, it is replenishing the supply of money that was
destroyed by the stupdity of investors in the stock market.
History repeats. Sometimes with depressing regularity. There
have been books saying that American generations cycle through 5 types.
One such cycle of repetition appears to take about 75 years or three 'generations'.
Consider the stock market bubble and crash of 2001. The entire thing
was a repeat of the crash of 1929. The same faith in the Fed, the
same intoxication with getting rich, the same disregard of real value.
Consider prohibition. Today marijuana laws are being rolled back
by local and state government despite the Feds refusal to admit prohibition
is a failure. Again, we had prohibition about 3 generations ago.
Consider the Civil War, it occurred about 75 years after the Revolution.
The USSR collapsed 70 years after it was founded. As you can see,
history repeats. Revolutions, economic crises, legal problems all
tend to cycle every 75 years. This may have something to do with
living memory. After 50 years the people who remember the stupidity
start to die. So the younger generation repeats the now forgotten
mistake, and in about 25 years it reaches a sufficient level of problem
to be a crisis. So 75 years. Find a newspaper written 75 years
ago today, and you will find that much of the attitude towards the government,
and social crises we are facing are similar to what is happening today.
This could serve as a good starting place for weekly sermons.
