An enriched life vs. a shallow life.

       A shallow life is the sort of story a person writes for themselves that is to me is all wrong and messed up. A shallow life is a life of satisfying one's own needs for pleasure and greed. A person might not have much but they will order the most expensive dinner, drink all the alcohol that they can afford at the moment. A person who leads a shallow life is consumed by consumption, they must spend money on something so that they feel good about themselves. People who lead a shallow life think nothing of racking up debt, borrowing money from others, or lack any form of pride and will just beg for money from strangers. Another characteristic of a person who leads a shallow life is fact that such people like to waste time by doing nothing creative by sitting in front of the TV watching movies or sports. Also another thing about shallow people is that they tend to avoid religion, thus they might lack any sense, or desire for direction for their lives. Then again they are happy with their directionless life. These shallow people waste not only time but the potential of what could have been with their lives.

An enriched life on the other hand is led by the virtuous. They see the value in saving money, and working hard. A person who leads enriched life appreciates the arts, plays, performances put on by local performers. A person who leads an enriched life finds value to tending to their homes whether it is mowing the lawn or maintaining the house somehow. These people also lead orderly lives and have religion in their lives, they seek to do good by putting the needs of others above their own. A enriched person values the small things in life such as the time spent with family by taking them out on family outings on the weekends by going to the beach or state/national parks. Other characteristics of an enriched life might include an interest in increasing ones savings and investments. Or taking an interest in political or world affairs that might have ripple effects that might somehow shape their lives. People who lead rich lives have goals, they want to elevate themselves above where they are. These are the sort of people who want better for themselves and who are not happy with the same old same old.

There's a difference in the way a shallow person holds a conversation and the way a person leads an enriched life holds a conversation. A shallow person talks mindlessly about nothing, and or about nothing of importance. A person who leads enriched life holds a conversation of value. When they speak they speak with words of value they say things that are worth listening to. Cell phones are part of the problem in part because of their ease of use which people take advantage of and abuse to chatter endlessly about nothing.

Modern technology is wonderful in that it allows us to share knowledge and everyone is able to collaborate on different ideas. Further technology allows for increased advances in all parts of society thus continuing to elevate the human race. But at the same time advances in technology also have the adverse effect of allowing people to remain shallow and being even more so. Though the counter to this technology can also allow for greater human enrichment thus advancing the human race. An example of how shallow technology can allow people to be is the online social network. Social network use to be a term associated with the group of people that a person was affiliated with. Now the term refers to online communities where people can instant chat and share pictures with each other and even gast! Up date their status. What value do these people add to the overall conversation of life? What value is there to people being online in the online social networks? When people socialize in person with their social networks at least they are interacting with others in a personal way, and the families could even get involved when families of the social network gather with their families. Are not extended families a form of a social network? The extend family is the basis for all other social networks. What might be good about technology for human enrichment is the fact the ease to which knowledge can be share with others. So basically we have the internet which might mean the place where the collective knowledge of the human race is stored rather the pipe line on which we visit the websites for various reasons. The more people know the more educated people will be and be better prepared to make prudent choices.

I think inside each of us there's a desire to enrich their lives, but by enriching our lives we grow deeper as people. By that I mean that we add valued substance to our lives. Rather than grow and live a story that is quickly forgotten when we pass from this life and when enrich ourselves we build and grow stories that people who know will tell others after we have passed. Thus the greater contribution to society the better chance that we will be remembered with infamy, or with fame and fondness.

Eric............

Rethinking the ten percent charity rule.

At what point do we follow the rule we ought give ten percent of our income to charity? I believe that the idea we give ten percent of our income to charity should only apply if you have no debt and make more than what you need for living expenses. Then again do people need some of the things that they buy? Who really needs a cell phone? A basic cell phone would be fine. But as a society do we talk too much? We need to as a society start thinking in terms of need vs. want. Then we will have enough to survive plus some to give to charity. But on the other hand we might question whether or not the ten percent rule is still valid in light if the fact that government offers a host of social programs as a social safety net. When there was no social safety net then it was imperative that people give to charity, since charities were all that existed to help the poor and the destitute.

So if ten percent went to help the poor how much does government spend on social programs? For the sake of the argument if the average tax rate is around twenty percent which is often spent on social programs. So we have to ask do we give too much to charity? With the government safety net the poor and the destitute have a higher standard of living than most poor people in other countries of the world. Thus in my opinion the biblical role of charity is no longer relevant as long as the current safety net exists.

We might look at another issue of the safety net, which is does the safety net get abused? The undeniable answer is yes! There is no incentive for people to look for work somehow, when you have a government willing to give hand outs. People find its easy to lie to government agencies and defraud the system. There is no incentive for people to find work when government gives out food stamps for an unlimited amount of time. If a two or three year limit were placed on how long people could collect assistance then people would be willing to look for work all the sooner in order to pay for the food. What is needed is a higher level social auditing to ensure that the poor are not wasting their money on things that they don't need vs. the things that they do need. If a person asks for a hand out from the government then they ought to be willing to loose their right to seek pleasure through luxuries that cost more than they can afford.

It seems to me that if there is too much charity in a society then certain character traits that were once valued in members of society are lost and society as a whole faces increased costs associated with those lost values. For instance when America was first settled there was an expectation that all members of society would work hard, be frugal savers, have pride before taking charity. This is in contrast to the changes that have taken place over the last forty years. With the increase/proliferation of welfare programs society has taken away any desire or want by the individual for a better life if they live in poverty. It was a mistaken hope that welfare programs would lift people out of poverty. But the reality is the limitless welfare programs take away vale/incentive that a person might want to get out of poverty.

Furthermore the endless welfare programs have a part of society that is lazy, wasteful with little pride in their lives. Also the system encourages vices, and abuse such as fraud, and lying since people feel they don't have to work or not work as hard to get the same benefits of society as those who do work and have to save for those luxuries that they cannot afford. Therefore we as a society need to change our view of welfare programs as being a hand up and not a hand out. Reforms need to occur so that people receive government assistance of any type for a limited time. We need stricter guidelines, as well as tougher enforcement for who qualifies for government disability. Also people need to be reminded that Social Security is a retirement supplement, and should not be thought of as the primary means for retirement income. Only after we as a society have changed our views, can we perhaps return to a nation of frugal savers and industrious hard workers. 

Eric.............

Secularism vs. Religion...

       We live in a society that is either secular or religious, then there are the societies that are a mix of both. American society use to be that unique mix of being both religious and secular, and where no one worked Sunday's so that they could go to church then after-ward’s be with the family. That was the age of the blue laws, laws that limited what business could be open. But there has been a dramatic shift over the last thirty years to a more secular society. Religion still plays a part in our society but it has increasingly moved to the edges of our lives as the blue laws were lifted, and the pressures, demands of employers that employee's be available to work Sundays'. Thus secularism the notion that religion plays no role in our daily lives has allowed for unrestrained capitalism to take over our lives. We have come to live in a world that demands workers be available 24/7 to meet the demands of the consumer. Therefore secularism is the umbrella that is inclusive of anything that might be a part of the capitalist nature. Capitalism if left unrestrained seeks to push religion out of the way so that it dominates society. We have to ask does this mean that capitalism and religion are at war with each other? If they are at war with each other its because of whats valued the people. The people being society. Therefore the value to society is to have businesses open so that consumer demands and wants are met, when the consumer wants. Thus the role of capitalism seeks to meet and full fill those needs of the consumer, which on any day of the week is right and just. But when businesses have to be open on Sundays we that we have whole sectors of the economy that are open for businesses as usual. But for businesses to be open on Sundays requires that employee's be available to work. By working weekends employee's loose the time that they would have spent going to religious services and spending quality time with the family. One way to counter this secular dominance is society would be for to religion to see its self as a service. Thus being a service wouldn't it be better for religion to offer services during the week? For the Catholic church this would entail offering a full scale mass during the week rather than the shortened daily version that has been traditional. This in turn might encourage more people to attend church. The church could set up an offertory box at the entrance to the church vs. the poor box and passing the plate, those who do not give on the weekend could be encouraged to give during the week.

Its not that capitalism, and religion are at war for dominance in society, its what value do we place at having one or the other? Religion needs to break tradition and meet the needs of consumers/worshipers or rather the faithful if you prefer. Religion needs to see its self as a service to society. The very nature of service it provides is moral guidance, and the reverence, worshiper of the most high. The problem with religion is that it takes on a attitude of superiority and that all should kneel before religion, even capitalism. Its with this attitude that the supposed conflict arises between capitalism and religion. But what is missing on the part of religion is the realization that the people who worship at its churches, temples, mosques must work to survive. By working and surviving and attaining the means by which to take the time to worship, people are more likely to be generous in both in time and money towards religion. Religion should not look at capitalism as a threat but as the very means by which worshipers work to survive in this world. Thus it is religion that should show humility and offer religious services not only on the traditional religious days of the week but in the middle of the week on which the majority of weekend workers might have off. It might mean offering services every day of the week or a couple days of the week. Regardless of when the services are, religion needs to recognize that it is the workers/ worshipers who it needs to lead and guide in the the worship of the most high. By serving the needs of the people religion is serving the most high. Therefore religion and secularism can coexist if religion were to show humility and creativity by servicing the needs of the people.

Though we could look at the issue of secularism vs. religion from another angle. When has or does secularism bow down to religion? The answer to that question lies in the idea that there could possibly be some major attitude shift in society. Whereas society for some reason becomes more religious and demanding that society as a whole follow religious norms. Such a shift could occur if some religious figure were to emerge that had both religious authority and secular authority. Through such thinking we can see that as religion has lost its authority, it has lost its importance to society we can see the rise of secularism as religion has declined in the value of society. Thus the notion of religion submitting to secularism and seeing its self as a service to the people because it is the people who still seek moral guidance, but on the other hand reject the notion of moral superiority of religious elders since they lack any secular power by which they might enforce religious edicts. Furthermore we can take the idea of religion a step even further and say the religion becomes a religion of the people. Or rather a church of the people for the people with the express purpose of worshiping the almighty. Thus the role of the church elders goes into meeting the needs of the faithful.

So does religion have to be at odds with capitalism or secularism? Religion does not, nor should it be at odds with capitalism, but it can enhance and be the moral guiding light of choice thereby enhancing the consumer experience. But on the other hand secularism has no place for religion, and the only way for religion to be a more popular option than secularism is to not only understand better than secularism, but to be better at serving the needs of the people.

Eric.............