Ir(religious) Reform

By: Jonathan Seidel

How religious is modern democracy? Religious ideals in hellenist archetype (Agamben, 66)

Many conservatives claim that democracy is based on Judaeo-Christian ethics. Obviously, they’re aspects that clearly contradict. The blasphemy laws opposing the right to freedom of speech is one such example. 

Even if these rights were not the exact calibre as modern formations they were the basis for the democratic bedrock. The flow of hellenistic writings made their way into renaissance Europe. Finding a home in Italy and then in France. The humanism of the renaissance paraded on these works. Incorporating platonic ideals into society. The cultural shift was desirable in the inclusion of such nuance. For so long, the religious authorities had held sway over the group and now they were halted, impeded by the new human-centred ideas. Harking back to the proto-humanist movements in the sixth century at the onset of Western democracy. Institutional fervour was to be expended. Democracies sprouted in the Italian peninsula and capitalism began subsequently. A new ideal for a new age. The new world was revolutionary against the backdrop of feudalistic oppression. The technological advancements. The great mathematicians and inventors hailed from Italy. So profound and so important for the radical shift to modernity. The ancient books were seminal in altering the playing field. 

Trade was the core of the shift. Italy positioned between the west and the east provided a necessary middle for adaption. A centre between the clash of diversification. The Christians in the west, the muslims in the east and the Chinese in the far east. The Mediterranean acted as a seaport for nations in the Middle East and North Africa. Italy had its Roman origins and subsequently was a profound centre of trade and distribution. As a centre for trade, it was inevitable ideas would accompany the materials. The muslims in the west were preoccupied with philosophy in Andalusia. Crusaders had brought back these ideas. An area rich in philosophical history took up the mantle as a trade centre. Crusaders enjoined the byzantine and islamic areas binding ideas into realisation. Urbanisation overtook the feudal static lifestyle. Towns flourished and one-time peasants were enriching. While the republics were run by wealthy capitalists, the service of trade acknowledged more humanistic ideals. The urban panorama expanded individuality and prompted self worth. As a crossroads for trade, cultural ideas swooned and invigorated the public. The republican notations became increasingly familiar.

Classical greek ideas flooded into the Italian stratosphere. Yet they didn’t replace the religious ethos. The Vatican was minutes away. Humanism was an attempt to synthesise classics and christianity. Similar to the eastern ideals of Avicenna and Al-Farabi centuries prior. Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jews present the most telling illustration. The Spanish Jews from Saadya to Maimonides were well versed in Plato and Aristotle while the French Jews from Rashi to Rabbenu Tam were less acquainted. There was even a controversy over philosophical learning amongst Jews. Many Italian Jews lived prior to the Temple’s destruction but the major change came with the Treaty of Venice's redirection of control to local rulers and the Pope instead of the Emperor who the French Jews were subservient. The expulsion of Jews from various parts of Italy enabled the refugees from Iberia to bring their ideas. The reenforcement of Spanish methodology brought in a new fervour to the Italian community. A community that was highly ashkenazi entrenched in talmud study inserted various styles of learning that reshaped the area before eventual persecutions and expulsions. Refugees, crusaders and merchants each brought more popularity to the age old phenomena. 

Christianity has but voided questions of philosophy and the immersion in material craft whether paintings or sculptures. The rediscovery of classical architecture and scientific thinking promoted all types of inventions and innovations. The Mona Lisa, the statute of Moses and of course the Sistine Chapel. The architecture of the latter only furthered the church’s alignment with the new change. Freedom of speech didn’t emerge in the Renaissance. Humanism was religious hellenism. It wasn’t secular nor was it humanistic. The humanism was a more liberal attitude towards otherness. Permitting the reading of the heretical greeks. Humanism in its basic definition was an exposure to the classics. A movement with little enlightened identity. Synthesising the classics with catholicism only sought to strengthen the legitimacy of the creed. Yet at the same time applying classical methods to religion differed from the church’s education. These humanists weren’t polemicists. They retroactively justified in the name of the church. Though whether critical or not, the investments in literature and architecture paved a way for individuality to rise. Machiavelli and Montaigne both of varying beliefs and yet proceeded alongside the individualist persona. 

It is growing individuality, enrichment and elevation that empowered Luther to publicise the known evils of the church. The reformation was a culmination in the spread of the renaissance across Western Europe. The promise of individualistic expression and invention birthed the printing press and accessibility for all. The classical revival was amongst the wealthy and scholarship. The printing press provided access to laymen for cheap. No longer was literate power in the institutions. More books meant more reading and more empowerment. Combined with the aspiration of Roman glory and overcoming the despotic reality, change would come. Increased reading only furthered polemical vestiges. The reformation sealed this with a publication that was spread throughout Europe. Luther’s theses did more in their dissemination than in stapling to the cathedral. His grievances were shared by many who believed that change was necessary. What else to change than elevating man. In a trend similar to the buddhist construction, protestantism emerged to raise the individual at the expense of catholicism. Just as buddhism restored man against hinduism so did the reformation. Calvin joined the ride with his own take on the christian alternative belief. 

While classical thought itself played a role, it was improvement upon and technological advancements against institutionalism that altered the trajectory. The reformation nor the renaissance brought in the classical ideas with the exception of the scientific prescriptions. The science was aligned with the religious motif. Even Galileo interpreted his findings in line with the bible. It wasn’t religion that was the catalyst for enlightenment. What follows the reformation is more war and the counter-reformation for stricter catholic theology. This pushed the pilgrims to the new world. Puritans weren’t the first settlers in the new world but demonstrated a symbolic freedom to practice freely though forcibly amongst the group itself. The renaissance made its way through Western Europe but it wasn’t religion that set off the enlightenment nor was it anti-religion that set it off. The enlightenment was headed by religious thinkers but with strong classic ideas embellishing their traditional theology. Newton though not a famed member of the enlightenment, was not only a prolific physicist but a committed hebraist. Very engaged in philosophy and theology. What shifted the balance was the governmental apparatus. The institutional overhaul was too grave.

The debates emerging amongst the enlightenment thinkers concerned the shift from feudalism to absolutism. Whether a monarch was the correct motto, Hobbes definitely believed so while Locke disagreed. Hamilton was for an elected monarchy and Jefferson a limited candidate. The spurious differential clouded the political atmosphere. Beginning in the mid-seventieth century, the king's role was incrementally reduced to the head of state that he is today. The grievances of the colonists were not aimed at the king insomuch as they were at parliament. England was poised to removing their leader from his political role while still championing the legacy of the family (no wonder the English royal family is still relevant as a spectacle). The role of classical thought undermined the archaic hierarchical status of old. The new model sought to endow its citizens with more rights. Debates of enlightenment concerned the role of the political. Though ethical in nature, the source was the political framework that displaced British citizenry from their own equality. Italy was the first democratic society in the Middle Ages, it soon reverted into a monarchy. Britain changed and it stayed that way with a few hiccups here and there. Yet it seems the disruption was over the new elevated citizenry against the overbearing monarch. 

The bill of rights is a political channel to limit governmental sovereignty. Yet this individuality is new. The rights afforded for the individual do not adhere to any governmental belief. Even the McCarthyist polemics were exceedingly unconstitutional. The idea of these god-given rights was that the individual could act as desired in the confines of civic law.  This was a far cry from the institutional restrictions of earlier nations. Secularism was the pinnacle of permissive individuality. John Locke is usually perceived as the father of natural rights, but the enlightenment origin began with Jean Gerson in 1402. It is with these motifs that Luther pushed for theological autonomy though Luther’s anti-semitic remarks towards the end of his life demonstrate an exclusivist autonomy for Christians. It is difficult to assume whether the ancients were providing extensive autonomy to the masses or certain privileged groups. Cyrus and the stoics seem to provide a methodology for all men but the communitarian mindset may absolve the Lockean doctrine. The counterreformation and religious naturism was based in spiritual escalation. 

Natural rights became more relevant in the tyrannical oppression of the citizenry. The first so-called secularists were conversos who despising the coercive inquisition resigned from all religious behaviour for a new idea. Spinoza was heir to a Dutch community filled with cynics. Spinoza’s secularist ideals were an attack on the religious invasion away from the protestant dogma. The political turmoil of the Middle Ages gradually opened the door for more equality. Volunteerism and extended legal compromises provided nuanced opportunities for individualistic growth. Monarchies were a way around the lord's power over the citizenry. The incremental growth was muddled by religious dominion. The inquisition was a dangerous institutional synthesis. The reformation which was intended to be a liberation that reduced to warfare. The rise of natural rights was amongst   believers and sceptics in unison. The issue of the changing landscape and monarchical supremacy reassessed. Wars, dogma and sovereignty caused excessive questioning. Monarchs had procured immense power and reluctant citizenry pushed back though with their own self concerns in mind. Locke and Voltaire both spouted natural rights but were still for a constitutional monarchy.  

The enlightenment thinkers weren’t equally distributive. Voltaire was a rabid anti-semite and Locke was at most tolerant of Jews. A fascination amongst many of the enlightenment. Emancipation was selective and provided a caveat. The first democracy was restricted to white landowners. Napoleon was the first to emancipate Jews to which the Germans quickly rescinded after his defeat. Natural rights were provided to all men but not the political arena. The political arena was decided by certain privileged folk and the rest were left to suffer under the thumb of the elected anchor. Natural rights could not be impeded but that doesn’t mean that corruption wasn’t destined to occur. Unequal justice and obstructive progress. Seeking to ensure a monistic paradigm. One race to win it all. Only one deserves the privileges. The new aristocrats without regal attitudes. Wishing to be the rulers of society. The religious inclination prompted a superiority complex though it is unclear if Voltaire’s insistence was strictly on religious grounds. He and Diderot weren’t seeking to place deism as the core of national religiosity. Instead the religio-political apparatus was to deny certain groups emancipation. First it was catholics then protestants and finally Jews. Other groups received their belated political power in time. Toleration was permissible but political access was strongly denied. 

Toleration merely meant to live civilly with others. No love required nor companionship. The social and political over the legal and ontological. Social alienation and political denial over the legal permission and ontological reverence. Toleration unveiled a single layer promising every group instilled respect but that did not mean that institutional activity would follow. Religion played a role in assuming the power of a certain matrix that required protesting to ensure political rights were provided. Even when the law was on the books the social apparatus didn’t care too lightly for the diverse candidates. Others can have their rights as long as they stay quiet and let the true rulers reign. While there was a religious component in some countries other times the religious identity was translated ethnically into generalised aspects that divided ethnic groups. Any other was a problem but the other at times was condensed into tribal persecution. Race became a bigger factor and immigration was hounded. People were technically protected by the law but it didn’t mean it was enforced nor that it provided the sufficient protection. Blacks were provided the rights of whites and yet due to social and political reasons they were ousted and subdued. The law was at times against them. Corruption and discrimination stole the inalienable rights provided. Human rights were minute in the face of socio-political investment. Toleration was the most plausible with little remedy. 

Democracy was a product of hellenised conduct infused with religious discrimination. Religion may have been the origin for secularist thinking but it was the absolutist experience that prompted citizenry defences. The monarchy’s reign was too great and with the urban surge the citizenry believed they could do it themselves. Slowly, regal ideals reduced to mockery. Revolutions replaced traditional sovereignty. The former appeased commoners were now in charge. They placed not their family but their ethnicity at the helm. Brand new patricians. Patricians so quickly abusing the plebeians. Some patricians had sympathy for other ethnicities. The American revolution had some more innovations in mind. With leaders who were more empathetic than the European philosophers. Leaders who believed in ethnic symmetry alongside Washington, Jefferson and Hamilton. While imperfect they were more advanced than their European counterparts who supported institutional hierarchies. While fringe groups and institutional oppression were advanced against slaves and ex-slaves, the anti-religious flavour of the American revolution was its salvation. The christianised outlooks of Locke and his contemporaries deluded other ethnicities. Those who fought against the traditional polis were successful when religion remained away from the discussion.

The Judaeo-christian perspective is flatly ignorant and disingenuous. Modernity did emerge from Christian Europe. The enlightenment thinkers were religious. Democracy was antagonistic to monarchical rule. Yet to assume that it was due to christianised ideas is to misinterpret history. The first liberalists were running from christian institutionalism. Enlightenment thinkers were selective in their push for full-length democracy and absolute rule was assisted by the church. Inalienable rights is very irreligious. Rights began in Athens in response to tyrannical rule with little religious impression. Thinkers were religious because many people were. Secularism had not made its dent yet. The religious pact sought to delimit access for other ethnicities. Natural rights and civilian policy were established by Alfonso XI in Portugal by way of reign not religion. The role of liberal thinkers sought to release their kind whether catholics or protestants from regal rule for their own elevation. They wished to replace but on their terms not for others. Notwithstanding the blatant contradiction between inalienable rights and religious obligations, there is an even more undeniable dissimilar relation. It was the political leaders whether Alfonso, Napoleon, Washington or Lenin that guided the search for the political empowerment of otherness. 

There were imperfections in the creation of a perfect state equal in all respects. While the philosophers continued to deny the socio-political nature to the human other, the revolutionaries saw differently. The revolutionaries were empathetic to all struggles though not always to the poor or immigrants. The philosophers and politicians used their ideological charm to undermine the fabric of symmetrical expression. Religious thinkers dogmatically denied further assistance to those under the heel of oppression. The church didn’t help Jews during the Middle Ages nor the holocaust. They also did not stop slavery or promote democracy. Enlightenment intellectuals desired a Neo-aristocratic turf. A newly recognisable elite away from dynastic elites. Instead ethnically synchronic for a selective group. Throughout early modern Europe, Kant and his contemporaries including Fichte and Berkeley weren’t the biggest Jew fans. While they proscribed civil rights they antagonised the people incredulously. Later Hegel and non-christianised Nietzsche were some of the only defences of Judaism. Intellectuals mirrored disaster and monistic agendas. Seemingly destroying the possibility of a neutral angle nor equal society. The revolutionaries on the other hand were quite pro-Jewish and pro-everyone else. At times, stuck in their archaic avenues. Yet way fonder of change than the neo-religious philosophers. 

There are religious themes to be respected and commended. Duties is an important aspect of social cohesion. Rights can become stale and used by degenerates to deny the promised beverage to the starving citizen. The correlation of religious instigation against the embedded separation is akin to illegal activity. Yet the invasion of dogma is keenly associated and unable to redeem the truth from the laced cocktail. Political thinking is the antidote not the bandaid. The failure of religious and philosophical thinking damned the innovation. Though philosophers were caught in their religious spiderweb. It was empaths who saved the downtrodden. Who pushed for reform. It was the political investment that is to share. The secularist thinking of Hellenistic classics that should be praised. While some of the religious spirituality may have modified the Athenian duality it is the bedrock of Athenian collaboration that prided the ideal of equality.

Interchangeable Archetypes

By: Jonathan Seidel

The bishop and the religious tracing in modern society: separation of church and state is never

The queen piece in chess was originally a minister and developed to its prestigious power over time. The bishop piece was a limited elephant that has grown through years. The religious tracing is obvious and demonstrates the failing division between church and state.

Historically, chess represented the king’s battlefield strategy. Where the bishop is placed was an elephant. Given that bishops not only did not exist but also clergy did not participate in battle. War was for soldiers not for sages. Yet in Frankish society, bishops and abbots participated in war. Appearing in the Courier chess game in the 1200s recognised the bishop as a clear player on the battlefield. While there may be some church intervention, the use of the bishop instead of other clergy denotes that actual battle experience. Ironically, in Indian chess the elephant transitioned to a camel and Russian and Lithuanian it is a military officer. Different cultures adapted the pieces differently. It is not clear the chronology. Did the elephant change to the cultural bishop independently or around the same time. Though christian Europe made the elephant change at behest to the church or to the battlefield. At this point, the queen had entered the board but the game had yet to change its purpose. It was still the king’s battle company. If anything looking at a chess board fuels medieval monarchies. The bishop is not the only piece but the knight as well though other nations call it a horse for good reason. 

Inaugurating the bishop only provided the two spaces diagonally that the elephant moved. The moves expanded with the queen’s growth. Basing such a theory on the church’s power would seemingly undermine given the decreasing power of the church at the onset of the modern age. The change could be seen as a defensive tactic to re-empower the church’s following. Also a testament to those past fighters even if bishops no longer fought extensively alongside the king in battle. Though the paradigm shift may have much more to do with this change. Both pieces more powerful abilities were progressed in the industrialised colonisation. Bishops kept their name but no longer stood for the same swordsmen they once did. Bishops were more figurative than literal. Their reflection in society was more intensive than on the battlefield. Its long range archery gives it lethal execution. It is just below the rook. Yet it can things a rook cannot do with range. If the modern expansionism says anything it is societal indoctrination. The game is no longer a war game but a game of society. Citizens play and articulate the battlefield of life. No church influence, purely an innovative game with a technologically persistent push.

Till this day the bishop remains on the board. Democratic countries with little power of the church involved. Bishops are ordinary members of society. Their piece still remains. Only in certain gameplays. Eurasian countries do not. They hold to their traditional cultural models. Away from the church and to their military equipment. For westerners, the church remains a constant storm. Despite the separation of church and state, this piece remains wholesome in the game. Little attempt has been made to alter the name. The islamic elephant was usurped by the christian bishop. There is no democratic sergeant or treasurer. The lack of updating since the medieval age may reflect the globalisation of chess. When it was solely amongst the elite, it could be swapped for political purposes but once it had been disseminated to the public such change was not as simple. The printing press spread it far and wide. Technically, an announcement could be made today but there is a certain candour for tradition. Though ironically, it is usually the laymen who have more respect than the elites. Still, the bishop is a piece on the board no one actually paints them as the church playing. The pieces were moulded by medievals and applied to the modern west. As much innovation many are kept to this day.

The bishop’s continuity has little to do with reasonable church power. It is more retained religious dogma from past. The inclusion of church and state is at times evident. Two examples quickly come to mind. NJ’s blue laws close all stores on Sunday for religious reasons. A more blatant example is the abortion case. Basing life at conception is a religious argument not scientific. The former is ingrained in the routine. Little pushback is retaliated. An annoyance that is parcel of the county’s life. Yet the latter is clearly motivated. There is no routine, no acceptance. Secularists deny and oppose.      

Religious Science

 

By: Jonathan Seidel

The dominance of western culture

Western culture has been hailed as the progressive ideology. It is the revolutionary paradigm. Yet does it not measure to the awfully rejected eastern nature? Many critical of the current age have argued for religion to revive its prowess but this is not the necessary model. Eastern philosophy as a bridge between the two is an untainted middle ground. 

Conservative thinkers continue to promote religious ideologies to save humanity from the progressive left. The denouncement of scientific fact for emotional acceptance is a hallmark of conservative criticism. Religion on the other hand advocates a lifestyle that cares for the individual and their dignity. Conservatism has become the anti-woke movement amongst younger intellectuals. To reject the authoritarianism and race-baiting formulations. Ascending beyond colour to character. Wishing for their traditional norms to persist. For the normative to be contained. Not to be blown open to infinity. There is a limit and the ontological aspects must be retained. 

The conservative mentality does uphold religious dogma but has made leeway for some openness to the forbidden. Homosexuality, while not advocated by conservative thinkers is accepted. As long as that feeling remains in the primal biology. Linking religious doctrines with scientific analysis as a solidified consensus. There is some inconsistency in this neighbourhood as the homosexuality arena is sceptically permissible. Abortion is a religiously motivated decision. A baby is born and unborn in the womb. Locating religious texts as the authorities of scientific fact. Their staunch defence has more spiritual lacing than unbiased agenda seeking. 

While this part of the conservative crux exists it is incredibly incapable of separating the constitutional tenants they defend with such fury. Separating church from state has been a deeply insensitive issue for the past few decades amongst others not part of the normative. Using traditional jargon to justify a long lasting norm with zero historical evidence other than textual sacrilege sanctimony. Starting a scientific theory from a religious text is a no brainer of collusion. It is this part of conservative ideology which plagues much of independent middle. The religious audacity to then manipulate these ideals to broker messaging. It is all too hypnotic and disingenuous. It is a rick-rolled miscalculation buying into a foolish gentrified indoctrination.

The focus on free market small government enterprise hypocritically crosses with the socially religiously emboldened limitations. A free country able to do whatever until it messes with religious traditionalism. Free country and equal measures for those who fall in line. Even legislating to prevent these breakthroughs of libertarian expression. Less federal control but empowered local establishment to create a dogmatic region. Wishing to keep to their norms. The freedom promised in the constitution is limited to the feelings of the religiously motivated. Triggered by the potential diversion in the everyday norms. Combating concern for the climate and minorities with extreme defences. Scared of change in the leftist move to a more socialist construction. 

Yet while there is where to continue to ridicule their undying love for flawed capitalism, what is more apparent is to find middle ground to positive points they make. Their resistance to the authoritarian woke ideology is commended. Their path is wrong though. Their obsession with the western-religion synthesis is highly toxic. That is two thousand years of political corruption. The western world is the creedal totalitarian agenda. The transition to democracy has not mitigated the classist orientation. The elites have expanded their circle with little horizontal improvement. It is the failure of western religious thinking that has corrupted not only proper religion but forcibly disoriented modernity. Modernity was the perpetuated failure since Ancient Greece. With backsliding democracies on the rise religion is not the solution.

While most people will not find religion either accommodating nor a reasonable answer, there is an outlet. Psychedelics has enhanced the spiritual pursuit capturing atheist interest. The spiritual phenomenon is not solely a religious ideal. For many atheists, the issue of religion is not the transcendent but the institutionalisation. God’s existence is irrelevant as the wondrous amazement is a unique encounter. Meditation arouses a profound human experience disconnected from any structural archetype. Spirituality can be shared but it need not be a human exercise. Instead a breath of shared universe. While politics and logic separate humanity on various issues, the spirit is a secret sacred sync. Linking humanity beneath the rational faculty. 

The western world is obsessed with its own image. Parading its ideology as the supreme order. Capitalism and democracy are the greatest systems ever. Belying any corruption or tragedy occurring under the regime. Preaching free speech but not anti-war protestors or socialist advocates. The breath of hypocrisy is obvious. Politicians who clearly do not represent the public but their own interest berating whistleblowers for revealing their diabolical schemes. The evolution of western democracy slowly permitted otherness entrance. Still caught up in racial identity and victimisation. Running around the world orchestrating coups and overthrowing leaders for self interest and wealthy pockets. 

Western democracy is a hidden villain. It hides its true colours from the public eye. The corruption goes unnoticed, the blame to the lower echelons of society. There is an elitist rung with zero accountability, insider trading and corporate pandering. This exposure to the media is either wilfully ignored, accepted with little repercussions or blamed falsely on a foreign entity. The level of lawbreaking and collusion is mind boggling but there is no change. It as if reaching the elitist threshold protects from imprisonment and responsibility. The country is prosperous enough to keep its citizens unconcerned or better yet weaponises the media to manipulate the public into harassing the other side instead of their puppeteering. 

In a word both sides are full of it. Both sides take extreme defences against the subtle changes as if society is being overturned. Consistently using the slippery slope concept as fact with little statistical data. For all their quotations of studies neither side accurately depicts them. They cherry pick those that prove their point. They debate in bad faith and call the other monsters despite their well intentioned purpose. Maybe talk it out a little. Stop being so emotionally engrossed that there is no area of conversation. Disengage from the ideological link for proper peaceful dialogue. Be open to changing your mind. Stop being so stubborn in an effort to thwart your parent’s principles or God’s wrath. 

There is a loss of ethics in the workplace. A solo endeavour happy to walk over others for one’s own gain. A competitive atmosphere ironically advocated by the conservative free marketers. Loyalty and fidelity have fizzled. Yet it is not western values to be reimbursed. Contemporary society is western all the way back to hedonistic Athens. Religious values do purport a counter effect but not in their current form. They have been hellenised since the Roman Empire. The creedal universalism is a greek concept never before seen amongst religions. They cultivated kingdoms to maintain their hold. While kingship is not democratic it follows the veins of the hellenist conquest. Then the reformation transitioned to a democratic system and yet much of the exclusionary tactics and universalistic aspirations persisted.

Even Islam is not innocent of these effects. Following Christianity’s universalism and monolithic mentality they have persisted the Roman Empire vision more than the Roman Republic version. Despite islam’s non-reformative history, it did possess progressive eras in Andalusia and in the Ottoman Empire. Clinging to much of its hellenistic vibe it has persisted even today in the extreme measures of the terrorist movements. Radicalised to complete the Hellenistic echo chamber of old. While the structure and methodology may be different the rationale and goal are the same. Religious foundations have attempted to maintain their eastern roots. Islam has held to its hierarchy and education model with obvious western lore. Yet it is the western aspects that haunt the future not its anti-democratic organism. 

Westerners don’t realise their own fault in this demise. It is two westerners duking it out in the middle of town. Eastern society has held on to its imperial ideals lasting millennium. While these aspects are nowhere near perfect, they present a counterbalance to the current western world. A society with raging nihilism and individualistic arrogance. In the east is common to avoid conflict and seek social harmony. Personal relationships are prioritised in slow development. While their hierarchical structures may represent an unequal dominance it also depicts a respected dignity. Demonstrating a collectivist approach whereby loyalty is the highest honour in the communal company. There is a deeper trust in a harmonious future. 

Many westerners look down on eastern norms. Eastern medicine is laughed at and mocked for its holistic healing. Westerners are so arrogant in their scientific findings that they demean other forces. There is much to be confident about but also what to be anxious about. Western society is a guise. It is not truly libertarian. On the surface it may seem so at moments but under the veil it pushes its agenda. England still controls Northern Ireland while preaching liberty to the world. Still have yet to aid the countries they imperialised and decimated for generations. Reformation has not drastically changed the system only mechanically shifting the burden to other universalistic ordeals. A combination of selfishness and deviance. 

Eastern prospects have much to teach westerners. Many westerners fraught with lowly maniacal routine seek spiritual comfort. A message for the egalitarian matrix. Egalitarian is more open spots for the elite not more synthesised society. People from all walks of life can peak into the upper exclusive circles. The neo-aristocracy may be multicultural but it is more oppressive. It continues to deal damage. To promote one agenda and cutback backstabbing blindly afterwards. Doors are open for more varied individuals to control the masses at large. The eastern model seeks to remedy the collective. Open for others must be met with respect as well as mitigating the paranoia of self interest. The collectivist style does seek to exploit the people for personal gain. 

On Duty

By: Jonathan Seidel

The failure of democratic rights: how universalisation muddles the inalienable.  

For all the religious dismay in its institutional danger and Nietzschean slave morality its ethic is stellar. Despite aspects of its archaic dogmatism, its core is beautifully annotated. Narrational exposition embeds a terrific layer of spiritual identity. Liberalism has lost its edge. It may promise inalienable rights but those are shedding before our very eyes. It is the religious ethic that can salvage the disappointing liberal model. 

Inalienable rights was an incredible innovation in the history of the world. Embedded ontological aspects that couldn’t be erased. Man was endowed with these from brith. There was no way that these could be overturned. This codified precepts cannot be overturned legally. They are the heart of human appreciation. An overall cemented category for the entitlement of humanity. Aspects that cannot be stolen. A person is endowed with these conditions from birth till death. An equality clause that transcends the normative function. It is the mere existence that encapsulates these conditions into place. They bind every living being into equal relation. 

Government is the protector of these rights. The rights are embedded in the constitutional order. They were encoded by the founding fathers to ensure reciprocity. Fearing the tyrannical mania traumatising them, they placed alienable elements to ensure an a priori status. Hierarchies though relevant and inevitable would be unable to restrict these aspects. They cannot be erased enclosed and encased in blood. These words are documentary evidence to national value. No matter which part of life one comes from, there is no escaping these rights. They are axiomatic personas relayed by the literate. The laws are unconditionally tolerant of the other. The government ensures these values are in place. 

Yet in discussing the constitutional rights there is universal jargon for human rights. There are apparent blatantly obvious ways to interact with others. There is an expectation in the modern day to relate to others in nothing short of posh dignity. Living beings are designated a measure of respect for being alive. Their human status entitles them a degree of importance. No need to prove anything. Existence is sufficient to award dignity. An automatic endowment for humans, creation itself binds these norms on the heart. The model of a good man is treating others with respect. They deserve this respect for breathing. It does not take nor need much. Humans are gifted this prestige with no strings attached. 

A social contract is accepted by the masses. Everyone enjoys these rights but this is the problem. With encoded rights welcomes the decay of time. Over time these rights, while recognised cease to hold the same power they once achieved. Rights are not laws they are beyond them but because of this they can be unfortunately dismissed. It is an incredible indebted privilege. Its apparent caliber is easily marred by time, eroded with novelties. Taking advantage of these inherent norms to straggle others. Self interpreting to fit an agenda and hurting others. It has little power if it is disrespected. While the origin document may uphold its prestige, its constituents may not. The trans-generational gap influences new thinking as well as selective subjectivity. 

It is the government’s responsibility to ensure these rights are covered. While a police officer is required to recite the Miranda rights this is state offence. In public forums or private areas does the government intervene to help? While the government punishes media censorship, will it punish student unrest? Will the government bend the knee to anti-gun activists. The government has tremendous power. It is can intervene or ignore. In its subjective approach, it can consider what is worthy of disciplinary action. A political unit unable and unwilling to do its job is malevolent. These rights are to be protected by the enforcers of the law. Cops do not only enforce law but also rights. No matter what, people cannot be stripped of the inalienable rights and yet this happens for “emergency reasons” and other dubious reasons. The suspension clause gives leeway to dangerous precedent. 

Hate speech and the anti-AR debacle are two example of eroding human rights. By redefining what the right means, it deceases it importance. Legalists and activists attempt to marginalise these rights. While they cannot be erased they can be reduced heavily. To regulate until it is no longer relevant. The rationale is ultimately unnecessary. Authorial intent is archaic to the reformers. Restrictions need to be placed. Rights are rights as long as they remain to an extent. Limiting their range by incorporating speech as violence and no AR rifles is a first stage in ridiculing human capability. The original liberties become prisons. The absolute is taken to the extreme voiding much of the defenders. Gun rights are a tenuous discussion given the mass shootings occurring but the answer is not no guns but gun education. “Erasing” the right to bare arms is an attack on liberties. If they cannot be salvaged than no one is safe. Is it upon the Supreme Court to ensure these rights are upheld but ideological motivations may yield little result.    

Rights run into a problem of being ignored and pressured into oblivion. The capability of a government or group to disregard rights for their own agenda butchers the social contract. There is an ethical issue. Human rights is a hellenistic ideal but for religion it is duties. While both have had their share of issues, the fact that human rights only applied to certain sectors gradually increasing with time is dangerous. A right is a disingenuous acceptance. It forces people to accept something they otherwise wouldn’t. To ensure the safety of everyone these rules are in place. The government will prosecute those who fail to live by these policies. It is a bedrock foundation but not one necessarily accepted in good faith nor happily. Only by the law do people uphold for the moment. With enough pushback the right may be selectively crafted or restricted or will not be applied respectfully. 

Only a lucky few were endowed with rights at the onset of the great nation. Successful land owning men received this liberties. Others were placed below the rung. The founders may have been playing the long game and the long game it was. Years upon years passed before marginalised groups received their share in the land of the free. Today all are protected under these lines, finally reaching that peak of freedom. For a long time it was the land of the free...for a few. Rights are possessed by all but since it is canonised in a legal doctrine, it can be reinterpreted. The entire corpus dignity hinges on legislative and judicial decision-making. The government decided to provide itself with sovereign immunity and introduce prohibition. Finding ways to undermine rights is not necessary ill intentioned but reducing the founder's foundation unearths sacred inalienable facts. There is a certain level of inescapable bedrock. It cannot be erased but the legal fountain that produced limited freedom is faltering in the opposite direction.  

Religion perceives society in duties instead of rights. There are clear drawbacks. Duties does not promise any governmental aid nor salvation. It also tends to be selective to one’s family. It is better to have an eternal foundation than a periodic biased model. Yet the pros inspire an ethical mantra in the soul of man. He is reminded to look out for others constantly. His duty is eternal. Responsible for others is an active policy not a passive intervention. It shifts the burden from archaic textuality to eternal orality. An eternal flame to care for others. A rejuvenating access to others and persistent dignity. The downside is scary for if ignore the duty there is zero obligation to save. People are left to suffer. For millennia Jews suffered due to the lack of rights. There was no encoded law or conscious right to not hurt them. Yet in liberalism’s triumph of rights we have lost responsibility. Little loyalty and fidelity remain. The ethic has been trashed in the void of despair. 

Placing duties foremost attempts to inspire a sense of principle in the individual. To be kind to others has nothing to do with external gifts but internal recognition. A stoic mentality that perceives others as necessary for one's development. Being is linked to belonging. A duty to care for parents in their old age for providing in youth. A duty to a friend in a reciprocal alliance. A co-worker assists in some extra paperwork, buy him out for a drink. A relational link encircles the individual with others. Responsibility is an honest connection with others. It does not rest on a command but on an understanding. A jolted feeling of integrity. Duty allows emboldened connection to others. It does not peer to others in haste. Kindling conscious manifests in acknowledging the debt to others. Duty is active while rights are passive. Passivity leads to accept at arms length. Yet duty premises an active entanglement with others to a point of respect. It is the encounter of immersive emotional appeal. Others deserve it.    

Duties further cohesive collectivism. The goal is for group growth instead of an individual passively going about his life. There is little incentive to aid others unless an ulterior motive is present. There is an individualism that cares for others as pawns. Dignity is an accepted norm but it does not lend itself for the next level. It does not shoot to proactively care for others. Dignity will be ensured due to the proactivity. The recognition of proper behaviour is passed from person to person. There is no single blueprint but an evolving order holding true to these doctrinal markings. Its oral network while vulnerable to drastic change and disregard is a lifestyle more than doing a nice thing for someone. The ethical life is a fated fortune. The goal is for education to remind people of their purpose to one another and groups’ vision. Rights need to be combined with active duty.