Am testing a new service called Flickr. It allows graphics to be incorporated in one's blogs. HTML illiterates can still try it, simply by knowing how to "cut and paste".
Since this blog is definitely a work in progress, more features will be added as soon as one catches up with the learning process.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Monday, May 16, 2005
Liberal Secularism Comes To My Third-World Homeland
It didn’t come stealthily. It didn’t just happen overnight. There were no mass movements or concerted efforts aimed at inserting itself into the collective minds of the populace. One can’t even suggest that there were palpable signs of its inauspicious entry
It simply happened with people thinking and speaking, one at a time, expressing their divergent views; while at the same time veering away from mainstream thinking in a country that was and continues to be predominantly Christian and Catholic.
But now, it’s out there, buoyed by increasing numbers from first-world countries in the European continent, almost ready to be taken and accepted as a rightful alternative to the traditional thinking which follows pretty much the religious convictions and beliefs of most of the country’s citizens. After all, it is essentially after and for the same noble causes the old guards waved as their tattered banners of war. Both sides are focused on the issue of human rights. The espousal and pursuit of inalienable human rights rightfully found to be either not equitably dispersed to the entire population, or simply not enjoyed by anybody or everybody.
Given the seeming unanimity in issues sponsorship, one cannot be faulted for getting confused where the differences or distinct nuances of either side lie, or if at all they are divergent. Remember both are for human rights.
Only on close scrutiny does one begin to realize where the deeply-rooted differences result in a vast chasm between the two, making one realize that indeed this newer voice for human rights is not what it is touted to be.
Let us examine this closely for this issue strikes at the very core of the seminal purpose of our very existence here on this hellish earth.
Christianity, and I would add most major religions of the world, is in a pitched battle with liberal Secularism, the latter possessing a chameleon-like agenda designed to emerge in many subtle forms usually in the mistaken call for improving the overall human experience.
At the core of this mortal joust is the issue of human rights which both espouse but for entirely different and opposing purposes.
To the average Christian, or to your typical religious devotee, human rights revolve around man’s precious dignity which is firmly believed to be preserved and enhanced by following strict rules of an objective moral order sanctioned by a living and breathing superior being. Most of the time called God, or by any other name most major religions have deigned proper to assign. Because life has consequences, the average Christian makes himself accountable for his deliberate human acts, measuring them against that objective moral order.
But to your typical liberal Secularist, usually emboldened by his perceived personal enlightenment and thus superior cognitive aptitudes, human rights revolve around the supremacy of the individual over any moral order that may be imposed because of a belief in a superior being; whose very existence, albeit its influence and power, cannot even be proved adequately or conclusively in the self-same manner that the physical sciences prove their postulations.. In effect, it effectively denies the existence of a God, especially one that sanctions the objective moral order.
Thus, this supremacy of the individual’s rights invests some kind of license to all his deliberate human acts, leaving to him alone and his like-minded ilk judgment of their righteousness or morality. Thus, abortion is okay because the woman as an individual has pre-emptive rights appertaining to her body which cannot be diminished or usurped by any objective moral order imposed by others. The same is true with same-sex marriage and gay rights. Because the individuals desire it and it is part of their inalienable human rights to enjoy. Never mind that the acts associated with it may not be entirely congruent with natural laws.
And one can go down the litany of new-age issues quite close and popular with the liberal secularists, and the over-riding justification will be made in favor of the individual’s human rights as perceived and defined.
Their causes then are deemed justified by their beliefs. Their most important mantra is that God is dead, or at the very least, irrelevant. Believing in his existence and his unproved supreme law would be tantamount to superstition. Remember the individual is supreme. Man is not anymore accountable to an objective moral order. He now evolves with the changing times, in harmony with an evolving moral (or amoral) order, dictated, modified and made relevant by the ever-present now; while at the same time assigning centuries-old traditions and beliefs to the dustbin of irrelevant history and sorry obsolescence.
This to him is the epitome of freedom as it relates to human rights. But without really accounting for the true and noble relationship of freedom and human rights. For to him, freedom is for the individual to enjoy, unhampered and unimpaired by the constrictive trappings of religion.
But we know too well that freedom is most free when seriously treading the dictates of reason and will, informed by an objective and unchanging moral order.
It is worthwhile to note that most present-day secularists derive their views of life from the 19th-century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who among others declared that God was dead and that the way of man was for the survival of the fittest.
Which cause then should we take up and adhere to for our own personal journey that would seek to fulfill for us the purpose of our lives?
Let’s make an informed choice.
It simply happened with people thinking and speaking, one at a time, expressing their divergent views; while at the same time veering away from mainstream thinking in a country that was and continues to be predominantly Christian and Catholic.
But now, it’s out there, buoyed by increasing numbers from first-world countries in the European continent, almost ready to be taken and accepted as a rightful alternative to the traditional thinking which follows pretty much the religious convictions and beliefs of most of the country’s citizens. After all, it is essentially after and for the same noble causes the old guards waved as their tattered banners of war. Both sides are focused on the issue of human rights. The espousal and pursuit of inalienable human rights rightfully found to be either not equitably dispersed to the entire population, or simply not enjoyed by anybody or everybody.
Given the seeming unanimity in issues sponsorship, one cannot be faulted for getting confused where the differences or distinct nuances of either side lie, or if at all they are divergent. Remember both are for human rights.
Only on close scrutiny does one begin to realize where the deeply-rooted differences result in a vast chasm between the two, making one realize that indeed this newer voice for human rights is not what it is touted to be.
Let us examine this closely for this issue strikes at the very core of the seminal purpose of our very existence here on this hellish earth.
Christianity, and I would add most major religions of the world, is in a pitched battle with liberal Secularism, the latter possessing a chameleon-like agenda designed to emerge in many subtle forms usually in the mistaken call for improving the overall human experience.
At the core of this mortal joust is the issue of human rights which both espouse but for entirely different and opposing purposes.
To the average Christian, or to your typical religious devotee, human rights revolve around man’s precious dignity which is firmly believed to be preserved and enhanced by following strict rules of an objective moral order sanctioned by a living and breathing superior being. Most of the time called God, or by any other name most major religions have deigned proper to assign. Because life has consequences, the average Christian makes himself accountable for his deliberate human acts, measuring them against that objective moral order.
But to your typical liberal Secularist, usually emboldened by his perceived personal enlightenment and thus superior cognitive aptitudes, human rights revolve around the supremacy of the individual over any moral order that may be imposed because of a belief in a superior being; whose very existence, albeit its influence and power, cannot even be proved adequately or conclusively in the self-same manner that the physical sciences prove their postulations.. In effect, it effectively denies the existence of a God, especially one that sanctions the objective moral order.
Thus, this supremacy of the individual’s rights invests some kind of license to all his deliberate human acts, leaving to him alone and his like-minded ilk judgment of their righteousness or morality. Thus, abortion is okay because the woman as an individual has pre-emptive rights appertaining to her body which cannot be diminished or usurped by any objective moral order imposed by others. The same is true with same-sex marriage and gay rights. Because the individuals desire it and it is part of their inalienable human rights to enjoy. Never mind that the acts associated with it may not be entirely congruent with natural laws.
And one can go down the litany of new-age issues quite close and popular with the liberal secularists, and the over-riding justification will be made in favor of the individual’s human rights as perceived and defined.
Their causes then are deemed justified by their beliefs. Their most important mantra is that God is dead, or at the very least, irrelevant. Believing in his existence and his unproved supreme law would be tantamount to superstition. Remember the individual is supreme. Man is not anymore accountable to an objective moral order. He now evolves with the changing times, in harmony with an evolving moral (or amoral) order, dictated, modified and made relevant by the ever-present now; while at the same time assigning centuries-old traditions and beliefs to the dustbin of irrelevant history and sorry obsolescence.
This to him is the epitome of freedom as it relates to human rights. But without really accounting for the true and noble relationship of freedom and human rights. For to him, freedom is for the individual to enjoy, unhampered and unimpaired by the constrictive trappings of religion.
But we know too well that freedom is most free when seriously treading the dictates of reason and will, informed by an objective and unchanging moral order.
It is worthwhile to note that most present-day secularists derive their views of life from the 19th-century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who among others declared that God was dead and that the way of man was for the survival of the fittest.
Which cause then should we take up and adhere to for our own personal journey that would seek to fulfill for us the purpose of our lives?
Let’s make an informed choice.
Friday, May 13, 2005
Now, It is Who or What Are We?
One of our more serious egroups had a rather casual discussion on the hot-button issue of government bureaucrats being exposed for having “abused” their offices by availing themselves of “exorbitant” and “unconscionable” perks, benefits, privileges, and the like, that would stagger the delicate conscience of any right-thinking individual.
One comment made was that it is often said among people of ex-communist countries that they feel that it is alright to victimize the government. Stealing is okay as long as perpetrated against the established government. And lamented that alas, our countrymen may now feel the same.
My comment was rather caustic and seemingly more critical about our own compatriots. I said that my firm belief is that it is precisely this attitude that has been ingrained in the psyche of our collective mind as a people that may be gravely responsible for the present ills. And this permeates in all aspects of our social and political life.
The traits of shame, love, respect and all the good stuff appear to apply only to persons related to us, in one way or another.
To illustrate, and this I gather from the many groups and gatherings I have been associated with all these years, our compatriots go out of their ways to liberally and profusely declare their undying and limitless love and devotion to kin, siblings, children, and all those bonded to them in one way or another. The altruism shown not only in words but more dramatically in deeds appears almost infinite.
But watch how they castigate with harsh and unchristian criticism all those they disagree with and are not kinfolk. Almost diametrically opposite, and the impassioned and/or deep-seated hatred expressed is most resolute and unwavering.
I have often wondered how both extremes can reside and co-exist in one person. But they do and I suggest one pays more attention to our compatriots in media and elsewhere where opinions are casually welcomed. Blogs could be a fertile ground for mining.
So loving to kin and kindred, so unkind and unforgiving to everybody else, be they fellow compatriots or citizens/officials of other countries. And we couldn’t care less for anybody or anything outside the realm of this cherished and beloved circle, blessed and nurtured at times with smothering love, attention, and devotion.
And these are the compatriots that we respect and revere as respectable, good-natured, and nurturing to family and kinfolk. Compatriots that couldn’t do wrong, according of course, to those within that same cherished and constricting circle.
One comment made was that it is often said among people of ex-communist countries that they feel that it is alright to victimize the government. Stealing is okay as long as perpetrated against the established government. And lamented that alas, our countrymen may now feel the same.
My comment was rather caustic and seemingly more critical about our own compatriots. I said that my firm belief is that it is precisely this attitude that has been ingrained in the psyche of our collective mind as a people that may be gravely responsible for the present ills. And this permeates in all aspects of our social and political life.
The traits of shame, love, respect and all the good stuff appear to apply only to persons related to us, in one way or another.
To illustrate, and this I gather from the many groups and gatherings I have been associated with all these years, our compatriots go out of their ways to liberally and profusely declare their undying and limitless love and devotion to kin, siblings, children, and all those bonded to them in one way or another. The altruism shown not only in words but more dramatically in deeds appears almost infinite.
But watch how they castigate with harsh and unchristian criticism all those they disagree with and are not kinfolk. Almost diametrically opposite, and the impassioned and/or deep-seated hatred expressed is most resolute and unwavering.
I have often wondered how both extremes can reside and co-exist in one person. But they do and I suggest one pays more attention to our compatriots in media and elsewhere where opinions are casually welcomed. Blogs could be a fertile ground for mining.
So loving to kin and kindred, so unkind and unforgiving to everybody else, be they fellow compatriots or citizens/officials of other countries. And we couldn’t care less for anybody or anything outside the realm of this cherished and beloved circle, blessed and nurtured at times with smothering love, attention, and devotion.
And these are the compatriots that we respect and revere as respectable, good-natured, and nurturing to family and kinfolk. Compatriots that couldn’t do wrong, according of course, to those within that same cherished and constricting circle.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Who Are You?
Was confronted by this rather innocent question when I was trying to update the personal information required or asked for for this blog.
Thus, spent the last 10-15 minutes or so trying to compress into a few words the things that taken as a whole define all the years I've spent on this earth as my life. Or the answer to the question posed above. Funny, how I feel quite inadequate and quite unfinished re-reading the things that I have listed down. And funny, too, that instinctively I appear to try to cast myself in a most liberal, hospitable and charitable light, almost instinctively attempting to project an image larger than life, thankfully with no dash of self-delusion or tinge of any illusion of grandeur.
Thus, resolved to try even harder at life and hopefully, do more interesting and meaningful things before it all ends for me.
Amen to that.
Thus, spent the last 10-15 minutes or so trying to compress into a few words the things that taken as a whole define all the years I've spent on this earth as my life. Or the answer to the question posed above. Funny, how I feel quite inadequate and quite unfinished re-reading the things that I have listed down. And funny, too, that instinctively I appear to try to cast myself in a most liberal, hospitable and charitable light, almost instinctively attempting to project an image larger than life, thankfully with no dash of self-delusion or tinge of any illusion of grandeur.
Thus, resolved to try even harder at life and hopefully, do more interesting and meaningful things before it all ends for me.
Amen to that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)