If There Were No Angels....

...would there be no sin? I believe I heard it first in a Pearl Jam song, but at the time it didn't resonate with me. To me, at that time, it was simply a "cool" question. Well, would there be no sin? What constitutes a sin? Is something a sin because some religious figure dubbed it such, or because it is a commonly agreed upon standard for moral conduct. Think about this; do you not kill your mother/father because Jesus says it is wrong, or because you are aware of the moral and legal complications surrounding the issue? Let me put it to you this way (and I"m posing this question to believers, not Atheists like myself); If there were no God would you still refrain from lying, cheating, stealing, killing, etc? This is the conundrum of all time if you are a religious person. To answer the question "yes, I would refrain from all of the above even in the absence of a God," would undermine your religious doctrine in a profound way. But to answer "no, I would decline into a state of utter depravity", would expose you as an immoral person, and somewhat of a lunatic. It's the type of question that is described as a "conversation stopper" when debating this issue (if there is such a thing) with a believer. So to answer the question set forth above; Yes, if there were no angels, there would most certainly still be sin because sin is not just about religion. The word sin itself may be a religious derivative, but ultimately it comes down to scruples and a society's values. We often are made to believe that religion is about "higher principles". I, however, believe it is a higher principle to do what is right not because some "higher power" tells you what is right, but because it is simply the right thing to do. These are just a few simple thoughts I had on religion.

Partisan Positioning

So we're in the midst of an economic crisis. Or are we. That's my take at least, since I have this deep suspicion that things at the top aren't as bad as we're being told they are. What I find most alarming though is the Bush administration's response to the Democrat's opinion that any economic bail out should include regular people, the so oft repeated "main street." The administration's response put succinctly is thus; we don't have time for partisanship, we need to overcome political rancor and division in order to save the economy. What is the economy anyway? Is it yours or my economy? Or is it the economy of Wall Street and Big Business? In an ideal world it would be a discourse that includes both since they both are truly a part of the collective American economy. 

However, the Bush administration's response to the Democrats insistence is emblematic of their position toward class and the economy in general, that is to say a biased one in favor of the monied interests. I'm a bit skeptical that the financial structure is in such danger in the first place, but any bail out attempt should include regular people. In my humble opinion the economic woes we're experiencing are a result of irresponsibility on all levels: government, personal, social, etc. Therefore, if we're going to bail out one party, we should bail out all. Think about what a bail out really is. As I heard Naomi Klein, author of the Shock Doctrine, describe it, and I'm paraphrasing here, think about waking up in the morning and having all of your debt erased. Think about that. No school loans, no credit cards, no home mortgage, no debt whatsoever. Now that is what the government is striving to do here. I'm not arguing that perhaps or economy needs some help right now, but I think there is something dubious going on here, especially when Bush calls helping the lowers classes partisanship. Why aren't businesses held accountable? They are after all made up of individuals right? The very same individuals that people like Bush and his lackeys declare should be more fiscally responsible. And shouldn't the economic puppeteers of our economy be held to an even higher level of responsibility and probity?

I am no economic expert, but I certainly find it awfully suspicious that when a group of Democrats wants to include a safety net for regular individuals in an economic package the president retorts, "that's partisanship." He treats it like an encumbrance. Screw you mom and pop, you put yourself in your own dire situation, but Mr. Wall Street let me take you inside, wash you off, feed you a nice hot dinner, and let you sleep in my bed. That's the essence of what is going on here. When you are I go into debt, irresponsibly or not, we're up the creek without a paddle. As actors in the economy, we all share responsibility to make sure we have a sound economic foundation from which we can all prosper. If that system begins to falter, we have a responsibility to help out as tax payers. I'm ok with that. But what is troubling is that so many times, Americans are told to work harder, to save, or to be more responsible when they are finding themselves in an economic hole, instead of being on the receiving end of 700 billion dollars. 

The American Dream

A while back I was engaged in a debate about American Politics, class issues, and basically what it means to work in America. The topic of the American dream rose and became a source of disagreement between my adversary and I. First I would like to try and define what exactly the American dream is. According to my interpretation, the American dream consists of "making it": finding a good job, having a family, buying a house, and living comfortably. This is a basic definition that by no means applies to every single person in American society, but that is the gist of it. For example, I may be comfortable with a thirty thousand dollar a year job, a beat up used car, a wife and cat, and a one room apartment, but hey I'm paying my bills and I'm not in debt up to my eyeballs; For somebody else, this may not suffice, that somebody else may want a six figure salary with stock options, a trophy wife, and a four bedroom two bathroom home on the lake. We're both living the American dream it's just that our relative concept of that dream is different in terms of material concerns. There is a much different definition though that permeates society on a much different level.


It seems to me that the concept of the American dream that is propagated by mainstream media, politicians, and others, is the one about getting rich if you work hard enough. And what I take the most opposition to, is that part about working hard enough. I feel this implies a couple of things: One, that if you do in fact work hard enough, and nothing else, you will be able to achieve some economic security, and two that if you are struggling to make it that you obviously are not working hard enough. I completely disagree with this. There are so many other entities that are working against someone who is trying to succeed that simply working hard enough does not always cut it. Sometimes you need to know people, or you need to catch a break and get lucky, or you need to be born into a favorable situation. This favorable situation could be being born into a wealthy household, being born white, or simply being born into a middle class family with parents who are the consummate parents greatly increasing your chances of success. These are just a few example, there are certainly others, but what the emphasis is on is that working hard enough is not the only factor that contributes to success.


The debate I was engaged in lead from this to the basic question of, "What should we do to help the poor and economically disadvantaged, if anything at all?" I posited that everyone is entitled to a certain base standard of living. It is our humanly duty to do so since every honest and law abiding person has some intrinsic worth. Actually every human life has some intrinsic worth even those who break laws. But, what I believe is that if you work in America you certainly should not have to struggle; The term "working poor" should be an anomaly and it should be an oxymoron or a paradox. If you are not working, I believe you should not be trampled upon and treated like subhuman, because as an onlooker, how can any of us know what another person's life circumstances have been? These people are also entitled to some help. Those who work contribute to the overall economic health of this country, and thus to the enormous wealth that some Americans possess. Though it may be too idealistic to insist that we all should be rich, I don not believe that it is out of the question that we insist that every working American should be able to have a roof over their head, food to eat, good health care, and education for their children. The basic question is about security, and does not security impact happiness or wellness? I've seen what economic insecurity can do to a struggling family, and there are other examples beyond my own. If you work you deserve security, and if you are out of work, aid should be available.

Why should security be only available to those with enormous wealth? The answer seems obvious to some purported realists who believe that since they worked for that wealth they have earned it; But, where would that wealth have come from if it had not been for the rest of us workers? Wealth is not just accumulated because some great man has a great mind. Wealth is something that is collectively developed, thus we should all be entitled to the fruits of that wealth. It would be simple of wealth was created in this country simply because somebody chose to work hard, be frugal, and had the intelligence and skill to acquire it; But some acquire it by dishonesty, unethical behavior, government help, AND/OR because they worked hard, were frugal, etc. Some also don't acquire it because they were ripped off by their leaders, born in to poverty, a disadvantaged situation, AND/OR because they did not work hard.


The question would be easy of wealth was simply a measure of hard work, but it is not that simple. There is also the issue of humanity. What's so wrong with helping each other out once in a while?