Have received a comment from a FB person. Not from this FB post page. But I need to comment about it.
The person described me as a “fundamentalist.” HUH?
The dictionary defines fundamentalist as “a person who believes in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture in a religion:”
This does not describe me at all. So, I feel I need to comment.
First of all, I was raised in the 1st Congregational United Church of Christ of Newark Valley. I have a great deal of thankfulness for this upbringing. I could say Hallelujah and PRAISE THE LORD. But one thing this church was NOT was a church to take a “strict, literal interpretation of scripture.” Not one single bit.
Secondly, in this church we, as kids, were educated in Sunday School. What a shame that this education is no longer being done. We memorized scriptures. For instance, Psalm 23. “…yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil…” Psalm 100: “Make a joyful noise unto the LORD. Serve the LORD with gladness. Come into His gates with Thanksgiving…”
Through church and family with its education from Dr. Norman Vincent Peale, I learned about Psalm 118:24. “This is the day the LORD has made so let us rejoice and give thanks in it.”
From singing in choir, there were a number of things I learned from Dick Kerr (and Pastor Dick Leavitt, too). I learned my mom’s favorite piece was John Stainer’s music based on John 3:16-18: “For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son…. God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world.” We learned that the message about “love of neighbor,” not rules from the Bible to make us feel guilty about sin, was the reason God did not CONDEMN the world, but sent his Son to SAVE the world with love.
My grandmother would often quote scriptures. “Judge not lest you be judged.” So don’t throw the book at people based on someone’s interpretation of what sin is. “Idle hands are the devil’s playground.” Perhaps this one justifies a “community center” in NV, but a community center is not the ONLY thing necessary because teaching about spirituality is being dumped down the drain, otherwise.
Does this not prove I am NOT a fundamentalist, or fundie? Perhaps the person who made that comment does not know me. But I have to think it is more about ignorance of what a fundie is. Not reading enough. Not looking into definitions and just throwing out the first thing which comes to mind, even if it is inaccurate.
Recently, someone in NV wanted to argue with me. Lack of knowledge and he claimed there have “never been shootings in the USA due to automatic or semi-automatic rifles.” I said, “REALLY?” And what about Las Vegas, Nevada, a few years back?” Reply: “oh, that never happened.”
With such ignorance of a person aiming at me for being a “fundie” and not knowing what the hell he was talking about, to someone else who thinks no shootings int he USA have been done by automatic weapons (semi-automatic —– WHATEVER —- let us split hairs), demonstrates to me just how bad things are.
Perhaps FB needs to be moderated, not for bad or vulgar language or full frontal nudity or gay sites or drag shows or… but moderated for false information. Fake stuff. And moderated for ignorance which needs correcting. After all, Ben Franklin’s newspaper had an “errata” when there was a correction needed. And this nation was begun in earnest by people like Franklin. Why have we abandoned this approach, except when it comes to censoring gay folk or frontal nudity or… all that other stuff WHICH REALLY DOES NO DAMAGE. But the ignorance does a great deal of damage.
The man who spoke falsely of semi-automatic weapons is much older than me. Which means he got his education perhaps BEFORE Dick Kerr who headed the BOE here? I don’t know. Maybe it was not here in NV, either. For before Dick Kerr, the BOE was directed by Congregationalist Bill Stimming. This man might have been closer in age to this man and I mentioned my dad, as a hunter of animals with guns, was disgusted with allowing semi-automatic rifles to the public. “Why would I shoot a deer or any other animal with a semi-automatic rifle?” Meaning. I don’t shoot people. I shoot animals and would never use such a thing on animals.
I just had to say this. That people need an attitude adjustment towards being humble to LEARN and seek LIFELONG LEARNING which leads to wisdom, not the stupidity of their certainty.
But it takes more than a United Community Center. It takes something like United Church of Christ in order for people to learn about GOD. And there is nothing wrong with LEARNING the CORRECT information about GOD, not the fire and brimstone preaching crap in other churches. Teach, not preach the certainty based on crappy rules invented by control freaks. Seek wisdom, not certainty of crappy stuff.
Commentary about Economist Magazine Article about “Creative Destruction”
It is difficult to wrap my arms around one of your writer’s words of “creative destruction.”
My best understanding is that you are defending the push by Reagan with his supply-side economics and deregulation. So, therefore, your writer points out that America has been successful in following this process described as “creative destruction.”
Your writer says America is still the strongest economic power in the world, even China. Perhaps your writer should read a book by Fareed Zakaria (The Post-American World). Learning from historical example, Zakaria reviews what happened in Ancient China to cause the implosion of China and fall into poverty, thus removing it from the world scene.
The similarities are amazing. Moving to rid the nation of small business, the Mandarin business class, and consolidation at the top, the nation fell apart. Supply-side Reaganomics and deregulation has done the same thing in America. The deregulation made the merger and acquisitions of small corporations, sometimes local (i.e., local entities for electric, telecommunications, retail sales, etc.), have caused close-to-considering nationalization and supply-side economics in which those corporations no longer care about consumers on the demand-side of a capitalist market.
The R&D efforts which once funded the smaller corporations (by means of tax credits for R&D) have been replaced by strong dictatorial control which has removed pensions from what might be considered part of the American “Mandarin” class and given the money as bonuses and 1000% increases to those at the top. What is described here permeates many other industries and companies (see Ellen Schultz book, The Retirement Heist).
Furthermore, I have observations and evidence about the impact of centralized corporate conglomerates close to monopoly status. Some of the observations are personal and involve family business. Other evidence I have provided in many of my writings about this topic for more than a decade.
With this being said and considering your publication is out of a nation with a long history of “royalty-based” supply-side economics (feudal ownership which was thrown away by those in the northeast of America (see A Free Soil — A Free People: he Anti-Rent War in Delaware County, New York – referencing the anti-rent, anti-feudal wars in upstate New York in the 1840s), perhaps the ideas of your writer are thrust forward so as to validate America’s move, by way of Reagan, to deregulation and the ultimate slippery slope of supply-side economics? The justification is more for the “feudal” land policies in Dixie, called plantations, where the owners were too much like a Charles Dickens character, Ebeneezer Scrooge – cheap, cheap, cheap, and unwilling to balance supply and demand, whether it be economics OR labor.
What people do not realize is that when Reagan pushed for deregulation, many people said, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Our small corporation was not broke. In fact it was a cash cow, due to the hard work of the people who labored to make it better. How nice to honor us with a severance package which did not last long, but the axe men at the top walked away, skimming money (is that not stealing? Perhaps?) in the millions of dollars, so as to “deregulate” and move to M&A for the sake of monopoly.
We were against the deregulation so we were against change. The definition of conservative: “averse to change.” That would have made us conservative, not liberal. Liberal defined: “open to new ideas.” Deregulation was a “new idea.” No wonder people are so confused. Liberal: “…a political and social philosophythat promotes…democracy, and free enterprise.” Ultimately, democracy with the words free enterprise demonstrates an oxymoron. Free enterprise left unregulated destroys democracy, as we see happening today. Perhaps Reagan was the liberal but called himself conservative? All of his charismatic talk pushed this world into chaos beyond just the political spectrum.
A reviewer of the Zakaria book says,
According to your writer, America is still doing better than China. But the question remains as to how well it will stand up when it is face-to-face, with a supply-side economics, with communist supply-side economics of China? Is there not a better possibility America could stand up to China if we were to use “creative destruction” (i.e., like the 1840s anti-rent rebellions) to return us to deregulation and bring back capitalism as it should be – supply AND demand? For America, history has proven this to be true.