Categories
Philosophy Religion Religion, Politics and Philosophy

“They (We) worship the same god”

I went to visit my brother over the Thanksgiving break—a thing which is always interesting and instructional—and a conversation ensued about which I would like to write a bit here.

A small group was sitting around the dining room table, just talking, when the discussion turned to religion (something I know many consider a bad thing).

During that conversation, a member of the family (who is unimportant) made the observation (and I’m going to paraphrase here) that, “Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the same god.”

Many take this as a reasonable posit, let me now explain why I do not.

This seems like a very deep and complicated issue, but actually, there are a couple of very simple answers to it.

  1. The first answer is simple, it comes in the form of a question, that question being, “Who is Jesus to you?” The most positive of Muslims (the ones who don’t tell you He was a malefactor) will say something like, “He was a prophet.” If asked how He relates to Mohammed, they will allow as how—where Jesus was important—Mohammed was a “latter prophet” and therefor what he said is more significant. I won’t even argue whether Mohammed was a prophet because it’s totally unnecessary. The Reason? If you ask a Christian (who really understands what he or she believes), he or she will tell you something like, “Jesus is God, come to Earth. He died for our sins and arose to the right hand of the Father, where He now sits reigning gloriously on High.” You may ask, “But the original question was as to whether Christians and Muslims worship the same god, how does this answer that?” It’s because to the Christian Jesus is God. The Muslim cannot say this in good faith.
  2. One thing so many people fail to recognize, is that when two texts exist that espouse different ideas and values—and most particularly when those texts are in conflict (at a fundamental level)—it’s pretty clear they cannot “get along.” That doesn’t mean they cannot tolerate each other, but it does mean they will not agree. This is the case with regard to the Bible and the Qu’ran. This matters because the very character of Allah is nothing like the character of God that is presented even in the Old Testament.

I could go crazy with other reasons and explanations, but frankly, this is enough.

I need not disparage anybody, suffice it to say, we disagree.

That’s my “two cents” on the matter. Thanks for taking the time to read this!

Categories
Politics Religion, Politics and Philosophy Resources

Favorite Video: What is America’s True Form of Government? – YouTube

This is one of my favorite videos for explaining government in general. It comes from a longer video that I will probably find and post as well at some point. Is it 100% accurate? Not in my view, but it’s one of the best I have seen to this point.

Categories
Politics Religion Religion, Politics and Philosophy

On the Concept of Disenfranchisement

As I was taking my weekday morning walk/run yesterday morning, I started to consider the idea often expressed as “disenfranchisement.”

My consideration led me to some conclusions:

  1. You may have noticed that one of the fairly popular business models out there, is called the franchise. It is no mistake that this word is used here, and as a root of a descriptive many used to express their feeling of alienation from some entity. A large part of the point of the franchising model, is that some “umbrella entity” offers to some “candidate subordinate entity,” the right to operate under their umbrella. The benefit of doing this is simple, the child or subordinate entity “inherits” structure of some kind from the parent or umbrella entity. There are a few obvious considerations here:
    • The parent entity has the right to decide who will and who will not be accepted as a “franchisee”
    • Part of the franchiser’s decision as to who will be accepted is based on the willingness of the franchisee to follow the franchiser’s rules and standards.
    • In order to make sure the subordinate entity does as is required to be accepted as a franchisee, the franchiser can and usually does require a contract to be signed, indicating the terms of the franchisee’s acceptance.
  2. In the case of social or political disenfranchisement, the “contract” used would be termed a “social compact” or a “social contract.” The intent is to make it clear that certain behavior is intolerable, some is tolerable but not required (and some of that, not desirable), and some is required.
  3. For a large part, the above expectations of behavior (or restrictions on behavior) are codified in law. Put another way, for the most part, you are expected to follow the “laws” of the entity in question if you wish to be “enfranchised” in that entity.
  4. Societal enfranchisement—unlike most other enfranchisement—is not entirely a “take it or leave it” proposition. Where there are certainly things in which you must participate to be a member of society (as well as things you must not do), there are many things you are more allowed as possibilities without the requirement of participation.
  5. Where it would be hard for me to be exact on the number or amount of ways, I would say I am probably more disenfranchised where society is concerned than enfranchised. You may consider that a bad thing, I don’t. To begin with, there often ways in which what franchise I operate under is as accidental or incidental as not. Additional to that, there are things I am supposed to believe and accept that are unbelievable or unacceptable to me. And if it ever comes down to it, I will suffer the consequences rather than accept or believe them.
  6. In my view, enfranchisement is far from all that it is “cracked up to be.” Being a franchisee requires that others tell you how you ought and ought not behave at a minimum. The maximum being that you are told how you must behave.

In the end, you may have a problem with the idea of disenfranchisement. I’m not generally so concerned by it.

Categories
Religion, Politics and Philosophy

Introducing Kurt’s Religion, Politics and Philosophy Blog on KPShubert.com

If you follow what I have been prone to do on Facebook in the past (I’m not a great fan at this point—too much fluff and other rubbish), you’ll know that I have a “community” there called Kurt’s Religion and Politics.

It’s been a while since I have seriously posted there—mostly because I find my stuff gets too easily “lost in the shuffle.”

This part of the site is intended to replace that community (if I find I can make things work as I please).

From this point forward, I will likely post things here, then add a link to Facebook to indicate that a new article or other post has been added here.

I have long had a mission where the subjects at hand are concerned, to present timeless, meaningful information and considerations. That doesn’t mean I won’t talk about current events, but it does mean if I do so, it will be with an eye toward the timeless. We have far too many people out there, commenting on current events without considering the larger picture. I don’t want to be one of those folks.

So, if you’re interested in my take on Religion, Politics and Philosophy, here’s where you’ll turn to find out what I mgiht think and say.