The Civil War Was About Slavery.
Confederate Leaders Were Totally Clear On This.
By Julia Craven
Symbols of the Confederacy are an inescapable fact of life in Southern states. The Confederate flag is displayed prominently near the South Carolina statehouse, evoked in multiple Southern state flags, flown in frontyards, on T-shirts and off pickup trucks. And those who fought during the Civil War to maintain antebellum “traditions” are glorified relentlessly. A few days after a white shooter murdered nine black people attending Bible study at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, apparently driven by the same sort of racial animus present in this history, the nation is having a conversation about how, or if, these Confederate tributes have a rightful place in society. This discussion has led some people to question if the Confederacy, and therefore the Civil War, was truly motivated by slavery. “But there are other difficult truths. Among them, when the war began, it was not explicitly a war to end slavery. … When hundreds of thousands of southern men took up arms (most of them non-slave-owning), many of them fought with the explicit belief that they were standing in the shoes of the Founding Fathers, men who’d exercised their own right of self-determination to separate from the mother Country,” wrote David French for National Review. “Others simply saw an invading army marching into their state — into their towns and across their farms — and chose to resist. And no one can doubt their valor.” Others have made similar attempts to explain away the significance of slavery to the war. But like accused shooter Dylann Roof, whose manifesto clearly outlined his hatred for black people and his desire to start a race war, Confederate states and leaders at the time unabashedly declared that the Civil War was about maintaining the institution of slavery and propping up a system of genocidal, white supremacist oppression. There’s nothing admirable about defending the Confederate legacy and its accompanying imagery. Yet many Americans are doing just that, often refusing to accept the role that Confederate pride and white hate played in the creation of these symbols (do a Twitter search and see for yourself). Let’s let the Southern states and their Civil War leaders speak for themselves. Ref
Alexander Stephens, vice president of the Confederacy, said the Southern states would fight to keep “the negro” in “his place” in a hard-to-misread statement on the day the Civil War began:
Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material — the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made “one star to differ from another star in glory. The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws.
Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy, cited slavery as the reason for going to war in 1861 and rallied in its defense until his death in 1889. His take on the Emancipation Proclamation, reiterated in his memoirs, is quite telling:
A proclamation, dated on January 1, 1863, signed and issued by the President of the United States, orders and declares all slaves within ten of the States of the Confederacy to be free, except such as are found in certain districts now occupied in part by the armed forces of the enemy. We may well leave it to the instinct of that common humanity, which a beneficent Creator has implanted in the breasts of our fellow-men of all countries, to pass judgment on a measure by which several millions of human beings of an inferior race — peaceful, contented laborers in their sphere — are doomed to extermination, while at the same time they are encouraged to a general assassination of their masters by the insidious recommendation “to abstain from violence, unless in necessary self-defense.”
The Confederate leaders couldn’t have been clearer about what they were fighting for.
But let’s not forget where “The Great Emancipator,” Abraham Lincoln, thought slavery fit into all this. Contrary to popular belief, he wasn’t an abolitionist, nor did he support social and political equality for black people. He voiced the primary goal of the war in a letter to abolitionist and publisher Horace Greeley.
“I would save the Union,” Lincoln wrote. As for enslaved Africans, they were just pawns in his war strategy: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it. … What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union.” Ref
christofascism (christian and fascism) as well as religiofascism (religion and fascism)
“Damien, I (christian) personally think Muslims should be eradicated for what they believe in.” – Challanger
My response, defense is a reasonable justification for violence but violence not for defense is hardly ever reasonable. Your thinking about “eradicated people for what they believe in” is similar to the radicalized thinking of the terrorists you despise. Such errors in thinking are nothing new as the idea of “eradicating people for what they believe in” is by and large a constant recurring theme of religions. And this has been a favorite excuse for harming others religious thinkers run to. I think religions in general as all lies should be eradicated not people. There is equal threat in this country from the christian terrorists and right wing terrorists than islamic terrorists. I am against terrorists in general and the belief in or support for terrorism should be eradicated not people. Secular education with real histories, sciences and critical as well as analytical thinking is needed to amend the problem not just more violence. Speaking of real histories “eradicated people for what they believe in” is similar to why millions of Native Peoples of the Americas were slaughtered. But some think even though sad at the harm experienced by American Indians still the colonization of Americas (and the ensuing slaughter of natives) was NOT religion based (it was a purely economic endeavour). To such thinking I disagree. From the beginning the Spanish, English, Dutch, and French all viewed Native Peoples of the Americas as Uneducated Pagans and all professed their desire to teach Native Americans the gospel of Jesus Christ. Indeed, spreading Christianity to the benighted peoples of the New World was a prime rationale for European colonization. However, propagating the faith always took place within a broader cultural context peculiar to the nationality of the colonists involved. Both the Spanish and the English thought in terms of transforming the Indians’ way of life, but only the Spanish pursued that goal rigorously and made it the foundation upon which much of Spanish American culture was based. Of course it was arguably much more the result of European and Indian sexual intermingling than the monumental educational efforts jointly undertaken by the Catholic Church and the Spanish Crown. Moreover, in the borderlands of Florida, Texas, and New Mexico, Spanish success at acculturating the Indians was limited at best. The British too aimed at civilizing as well as Christianizing the Indians, but compared to the Spanish, whose mighty missionary efforts were driven by the powerful Catholic Church, the British commitment to propagating their faith and culture among Native Americans was desultory. Also bringing together the resources of their Catholic Church and Crown, the French missionary adventure in North America was extensively pursued through the Saint Lawrence River valley, the Illinois country, and down the Mississippi River valley to Louisiana and the Gulf of Mexico. Less intrusive and generally more accommodating than Spanish clerics, French priests nevertheless garnered thousands of converts and played a crucial role in forging a Franco-Indian alliance that dominated much of North America. The European missions to the Indians aside, the most fascinating educational story regarding the Indians concerned their adjustments to the European invasion of America that began with Columbus’s arrival in 1492. Ref
Even in the initial stages of contact between European Christians and Native Indian people the stage was set for ethnocentrism, and the Attitude towards the Indians was that of Christian superiority. The Indians were read a proclamation in Spanish which they had no hope of understanding, they had no hope of understanding the death sentence they were being read, and it went something like this: “We ask and require you to acknowledge the church as the ruler and Superior of the whole world and the high priest called pope and in his Name the king of Spain as lords of this land. If you submit we shall Receive you in all love and charity and shall leave you, your wives and Children and your lands free without servitude, but if you do not submit. We shall powerfully enter into your country and shall make war against You, we shall take you and your wives and your children and shall make Slaves of them and we shall take away your goods and shall do you all The harm and damage we can.” This proclamation was use standard until around 1860! Ref
Moreover, an article in 1839 not using the term “manifest destiny”, did predict a “divine destiny” for the United States and an article in 1845 issued an unmistakable call for American expansionism. Focusing mainly on bringing the Republic of Texas into the union, it declared that expansion represented “the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.” Thus a powerful American slogan was born. “Manifest Destiny” became first and foremost a call and justification for an American form of imperialism, and neatly summarized the goals of the Mexican War. It claimed that America had a destiny, manifest, i.e., self-evident, from God to occupy the North American continent south of Canada (it also claimed the right to the Oregon territory including the Canadian portion). “Manifest Destiny” was also clearly a racial doctrine of white supremacy that granted no native American or nonwhite claims to any permanent possession of the lands on the North American continent and justified white American expropriation of Indian lands. (“Manifest Destiny” was also a key slogan deployed in the United States’ imperial ventures in the 1890s and early years of the twentieth century that led to U.S. possession or control of Hawaii and the Philippine Islands.) But Manifest Destiny was not simply a cloak for American imperialism and a justification for America’s territorial ambitions. It also was firmly anchored in a long standing and deep sense of a special and unique American Destiny, the belief that in the words of historian Conrad Cherry, “America is a nation called to a special destiny by God.” Ref
When I was young I raged at the world for abuse I received from my parents. Then I developed some, so I held my parents accountable, raging at them and the world; as so much was out there, like them. Then I fully developed and became an atheist, thus I started to see my parents were two different versions of christofascism (christian and fascism), as well as I saw that relatively all religions in some way are part of religiofascism (religion and fascism) especially how they often force hereditary religion of children by cursive force or oppression and I became an antireligionist atheist raging against religion as well as the lies of gods.
Compare and Contrast (religious and non-religious)
The following is a poem from the book Taste Your Emotions that relates to this:
I rub my eyes, Is it true?
I am smiling
Giddy with joy
I look at myself in the mirror
It is like a new me, looking back.
Warm sun sits on my face
Blue skies float inside my eyes.
Happiness of my smile glitters like the stars
I feel new, the mountains of my life did not landslide.
For now, I stand here growing strong.
My life came from a hard seed of hate.
Now changed and strong, I spring forth into a sturdy tree of love.
As a religious believer, I was a far cry from the individual I am now. Almost a complete opposite juxtaposition can be seen in most areas. Some of my past fanaticism mirrors my family’s’ membership in a strict religious Christian cult called “The Local Church”. Theologically, the Local Church is considered by most Christian apologists and counter cult professionals to be a cult of Christianity. According to cult leader Witness Lee, all are evil, even others in Christianity are viewed as blind, fallen, poor, and degraded. Witness Lee calls all other Christian denominational groups harlot daughters of the whore of Babylon (Apologetics Index, 2009). I was also uncaring as a result of my parents’ sexual, physical, emotional, and mental abuse and living in a community of aggression and violence. This oppression and empathy robbing happened both in the home as well as from being from tough schools and neighborhoods in southern california which exposed me directly to seeking approval through acting out violently as well. The topics that will be analyzed are love, cohabitation, sexuality, gender, divorce, working women, marriage, extramarital affairs, child-rearing practices, homosexuality, war, America, politics, family, religion, society, media, racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, morals, and the American justice system.
My Views as a religious thinker
*Love: was a fantasy of the gullible few and what could be obtained was more akin to heavy liking than the conception of romantic love. This was also true with family or friends.
*Cohabitation: was okay, but not really what you should do because it was a sin.
*Sexuality: must be controlled, it was fun but if overt or out of the norm it was shameful or evil.
*Gender: was who we were supposed to be as designed by God and the bible’s understanding of gender told you how to correctly act.
*Divorce: was a sign of failure and showed you did not try. Marriage was to last forever till death do you part.
*Working women: should not have to work if they do not want to; unless it is required in order to earn the needed combined income to survive.
*Marriage: equals monogamy. It was meant to be forever good or bad and was between only one man and one woman.
*Extramarital affairs: sex outside marriage was totally wrong, sinful, demonstrated you did not love the other party, and if accrued will end a marriage.
*Child-rearing practices: I thought spanking should be limited due to his abuse by spanking.
*Homosexuality: I hated homosexuals; I thought being gay was totally wrong, sinful, and demonstrated perversion of the natural world.
*War: was a good means of bettering the world by killing all those who are against America or threaten democracy. I was all for war. I loved radical American nationalism and the thought of power through fear of war with America. In fact, I was so into war that when the first gulf war happened, he was thrilled and hoped the U.S. would bombed and killed the region back to the “Stone Age.” I almost joined the military just to have the opportunity to go to war, be masculine, and kill the enemy but was denied because he was too heavy.
*America: I thought America was the greatest country on earth, blessed by bible God and had a positive legacy of reason and justice; it was a spearhead of freedom for the world.
*Politics: I was a proud conservative republican and was active in politics. I felt it was a responsibility of every American to vote. At the age of 18, was the first time to vote, I was paid to serve in the voting booth operation. He served in the voting booth operation more than once and thought it was a demonstration of my staunch patriotism.
*Religion: I thought the only real true faith was Christianity and it should be pushed on others.
*Society: I thought society was a positive structure necessary to human advancement and god as well as religion were an important part.
*Media: was mostly helpful with a few negative themes.
*Racism: was not good but was mainly an issue of the past.
*Sexism: was mostly a man overexerting masculinity or women’s overreaction of men’s God given authority.
*Ethnocentrism: I saw it as cultural pride a positive love of one’s own kind.
*Morals/ethics: laws given by the Christian God.
*The American Justice system: could be totally trusted. It was simply one of the best judicial systems formed by man.
My Views as a non-religious thinker
*Love: is an amalgam of intertwined emotions and connectedness realized in expressiveness. It is not a one time event but a continually fluid reactional experiential relative multi-dimensional conception. Love can be experienced and shared by several different variations of women and men in any grouping they choose, be it homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, or group romantic partners. Love changed because I now have positive significant romantic relationships in my life which are different than those modeled by family in my past. Love is similar to maturity in that they do not simply reach some sort of plateau or final state; instead they are a lifetime process of becoming.
*Cohabitation: I think it is no different than not doing it. Cohabitation differs now from before because he has universal ethics, not morals.
*Sexuality: to me is now seen through universal ethics, thus is morally neutral. It should be openly expressed and experienced because it is a positive expression of life and holds no shame or negative orientations, if consenting and between adults. Sexuality differs now because I have universal ethics, not morals. Things like sex for fun, swinging, fetish, porn, prostitution, homosexuality, bisexuality, nudism, strip clubs, group sex, polyamory, polygamy, or polyandry, and even sex between consenting adult family members hold no preconceived negativity or innate wrongness. My universal ethics is a moral standard allowing sexual freedom up to the limit of coercive harm. Since universal ethics is independent of culture, societal standards, moral codes, religious laws, or personal ethical views “sex” or one’s sexual orientation and gender identity loses its right or wrong status; thus, it is morally neutral (Foldvary, 1980).
*Gender: to me is now is an oppressive somewhat invented categorization which forces a picking of one side instead of seeing all people having a varying expression of both masculinity and femininity and should not devalued those who do not fit a socially conceived ideal. Gender has changed because I learned it was not who we are, but who we are told to be. In acknowledging my true self, I realized I had both femininity and masculinity. I have a genderqueer identity; 40% female-typed and 60% male-typed, yet 100% straight.
*Divorce: to me is now is simply a separation that one chooses for personal reasons holding little ethical significance. Evolutionary psychologists contend that human beings are designed to fall in love but not stay in love (Crandell et al., 2009).
*Working women: to me is now are not different than other human beings in obtainment of rights. Thus, they should be wholeheartedly supported to work which includes childbearing without having to jeopardize their high-level career positions. Furthermore, women or the care giving spouse should not have to work if they do not want to unless it is required in order to earn the needed combined income to survive. High-level career positions are just as important for women to reach as men (Crandell et al., 2009).
*Marriage: my current marriage is defined under shared openness with my bisexual wife and their responsible non-monogamy. Thus, marriage is not so rigidly defined as in society. Marriage could involve monogamy or any other forms of chosen non-monogamy, it should also alough gay marriage as well as for all LGBTQI, I also support multiple marriage/poly marriage as long as it’s of free consent. If it is a committed partnership which could involve several different variations of women and men in any grouping they choose, be it homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, or group marriage. If adults wish to lawfully join no matter the grouping, they should be allowed to do so.
*Extramarital affairs: to me now may involve sex outside of agreed upon mutual relationship rules is not congruent with entered into marriage contract, though being that stringent monogamy is not suited to all, it is understandable even if not a highly valued practice buy some but I am in an open relationship practicing ethical nonmonogamy and have a happy marriage and life. Some adults do make distinctions in types or situations to either understand or justify infidelity which may include practicing ethical nonmonogamy.
*Child-rearing practices: I am anti-spanking and am against physical, psychological or emotional abuse of children. I have never had children and by choice had a vasectomy to never have them. Though he feels there should never be any form of physical violence done to a child of which spanking falls under that category.
*Homosexuality: to me is now is a healthy sexual form of desire expression and simply another category of normal sexuality. In addition, homosexuality is both common and natural being observed in close to 1500 animal species.
*War: to me is now is physical harm and killing, this killing is murder of which is mostly illegal and unethical in other circumstances, unless involved for protection or a (just) war that is restrained, humane, and ultimately directed towards the aim of establishing lasting peace and justice (Colero, n.d.). Though some killing in war is necessary it must not be taken lightly being that it is still murder. Just reasons to go to war could involve restricted reasons, self-defense, and the rescue of another from an aggressor. Likewise, self-defense may be broadened from defense against actual attack to defense against threats, or against perceived threats, and it may be permissible to make pre-emptive strikes. My feelings about just war mirror Just War Theory which embraces principles about the way war may be conducted, generally ruling out gratuitous violence, war against civilians and innocents (Rigstad, 2008). I am for non-aggression but believe it is justified in self-defence or other-defence.
*America: I believe America was founded on a subjected ideal of freedom and had an often shameful, unethical even unjust past. Is there justice in the system or is it just us in the system? Though America had some good ideals and principles, it mainly supported the few such as white affluent Judeo-Christian men and not for the ethnic minorities, children, women, homosexuals, and non-Christians. America was slow to start or just recently began employing reason and justice to fight against ageism, classism, racism, religious intolerance, reverse discrimination, sexism, homophobia, ethnocentrism, and xenophobia.
*Politics: I am a eclectic Liberal and Leftist mainly involve Libertarian Socialism, Anarcho-Collectivism, Anarcho-Mutualism, Natural Rights Libertarianism, Left-Libertarianism, Anarcho-Naturism, Green Anarchism, Dialectical Naturalism, Anti-capitalism, Progressive, Secularism, Democratic Socialism, Libertarian Municipalism, Radical Minarchism, and Anarcho-Mutualism Political Philosophies with Axiology.
*Religion: I does not believe in any gods nor do I feel favorable to any religion, as I am not just an atheist or even an anti-theist as I have stopped following or believing any religious mythologies. In fact, I am an anti-religionist. Not just Atheist, I am a proud anti-religionist. Religion is Conspiracy Theories of Reality, Not Worth Believing In. Those atheists who still like esoteric religions or religious philosophies that is not me at all. I reject it all, every religion or pseudo religion. Just so I am not misunderstood this includes buddhism, satanism, taoism, paganism, wicca, spiritualism, etc. Don’t get me wrong I am against ALL religion. I challenge your beliefs, because you won’t. To me, every religion was new at some point and had someone who made shit up, yes all of them, every religion. As an atheist, I am a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of god or gods. In my non-belief, I am also ignostic feeling that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of god(s). As an ignostic, I am a person who rationale no idea of anything from reality whatever to label as “a concept of god” thus I can say I have no idea of anything that can connect to the term god and no reason to think anyone else can either. As an anti-theist, I am a person who is active in opposition to theism: both the concepts of god(s) as well as the religions that support them. This is because theistic concepts and theistic religions are harmful and that even if theistic beliefs were true, they would be undesirable. As an anti-religionist, I am a person who can look at religion on the whole and see it is detrimental to the progress of humanity thus am in opposition to all and every religion, not even just opposition to organized religion. In case you were wondering, I am anti-pseudoscience, anti-supernatural, and anti-superstition as well. Yes, I am a proud anti-religionist not just atheist or even anti-theist. So, as as atheist, anti-theist, and anti-religionist; I am against flawed superstitious magical beliefs like god(s) and/or religion. However, I am not against people. I have many strong opinions and beliefs as well as challenge or am against many types of beliefs especially if they involve supernatural or superstitious. However, I am not against people nor am I against their free right to believe as they wish. To me everyone owns themselves and their beliefs are theirs as well. Thus, to me not I or anyone has the right to force people on what to believe.
*Society: can be both positive and negative. Though most of its themes require those in it, to fit in and not be too different or risk condemnation. It can stifle out of the box thinking, values, or reasoning since it is by nature a box bound in group ideas.
*Media: is bias both somewhat positive and can be detrimentally negative. It cannot be trusted; it has many distribution channels though the most influential across the board has been television. We are constantly exposed to thousands of images of violence, sex, and Americanism, sexism, as well as mostly Judeo-Christian values. Television’s free unrestrained teacher is advertising, often expected to push ideas that are highly biased and without being challenged. There are about 40,000 ads a year. But who owns the media, which companies or people shape our values, beliefs and decisions. Basically only five major companies own 95% of all the media (Hubpages Inc., 2009).
*Racism: is an oppressive reality with a long history and sadly still lingering today in many forms.
*Sexism: is one of the last frontiers needing to be tackled and I feel a strong anger that this is not being changed. We cannot use aggressive words towards someone’s race without censure or outrage but put down a woman or use negativity about women towards men and it is either unnoticed or laughed about. Many in middle adult hood feel they have a personal responsibility to make the world a better place (Crandell et al., 2009).
*Ethnocentrism: I sees it as limiting the acceptance of others. Its negative exclusion tendencies surround believing that one’s ethnic, cultural group, language, behaviors, customs, or religion are better that all other groups which teeters on bigotry.
*Morals/Ethics: are not universally just to all, but the best we can have is universal ethics. Atheist Morality = Scientific Morality? Atheist Morality to me is generally somewhat like universal ethics whether they know it or express it as such. Some atheists don’t really address the philosophical arguments of atheistic anti-humanism from atheistic humanism. I am and was dissatisfied with what to me was a lack of scientific core in secular morality. Thus, looked for and found what I was hoping for in Formal Axiology (scientific value theory) which is a social science. I wish to promote common sense, thus challenge thinking that is flated or in error and bad behaviors as well as promote positive humanism and wish for human flourishing as people have dignity and what they may believe has no dignity. And, as far as what I want when it comes to beliefs, I wish to inspire the ethics of belief such as that which is needed in ones increased accuracy of beliefs. We should be thoughtful in belief acquisition, be open in our belief. maintenance, and intellectually honest in our belief relinquishment. This Guardian link is a interesting article close to the dissatisfied way I think some who are atheists seem to avoid or struggle in navigating the difference between anti-humanism and humanism. Which if not we’ll defined confuses the arguments especially in clearly relating atheistic morality in general. To me, it seems many atheists either somehow adopt quasi religious moral thinking try with little substance to core out a moral middle or reject morality entirely in either a relativistic or nihilism way. I reject that line of thinking and see morality as originating outside of religion, involving evolutionary scientific and objective and supported by Formal Axiology which has been proven empirically valid. I mainly hold to objective morality but I do believe morality at times is a blending of subjective and objective factors. This spectator link offers a very interesting critique that is not that different than I would make saying why atheism if it wants scientific morality must adopt axiology (philosophical value theory) or formal axiology (science of value) or something like it or have to give a valid way to account for or navigate its morality, I think that for many and why I think atheistic morality has not fully done more than either use some leftover religious thinking use of idealism and hope is they lack some grounding. *Value theory (informal/philosophical axiology) encompasses a range of approaches to understanding how, why, and to what degree person’s value things; whether the object or subject of valuing is a person, idea, object, or anything else. This investigation began in ancient philosophy, where it is called axiology or ethics. Early philosophical investigations sought to understand good and evil and the concept of “the good”. Today, much of value theory aspires to the scientifically empirical, recording what people do value and attempting to understand why they value it in the context of psychology, sociology, and economics. At the general level, there is a difference between moral and natural goods. Moral goods are those that have to do with the conduct of persons, usually leading to praise or blame. Natural goods, on the other hand, have to do with objects, not persons. For example, the statement “Mary is a good person” represents a very different sense of the word ‘good’ than the statement “That was some good food”. Ethics is mainly focused on moral goods rather than natural goods, while economics has a concern in what is economically good for the society but not an individual person and is also interested in natural goods. However, both moral and natural goods are equally relevant to goodness and value theory, which is more general in scope. Ref *Formal axiology (science of value) is a foundation upon which a scientific revolution of scientific morality can be attained or at least furthered. To position humanism even secular humanism or to say there can be a scientific morality can come one day, is not an account of a current fact or a true justification of not just how one lives there life or even believes that life should be lived but what empirical or philosophical evidentiary validation is offered? If you want to read about “Formal Axiology” check out this link. Formal Axiology, the science of value, has the distinctive difference of being based on deductive reasoning, a method by which concrete applications & interpretative detail are deduced from axioms, definitions and postulates. Hartman’s “Axiom of Value” provided us with a formal mathematical norm which can be applied to any field of study to structure the value parameters of that field, and then it weighs or measures individuals or teams against that scientific norm. Dr. Leon Pomeroy in his book, The New Science of Axiological Psychology (Pomeroy, 2005), has shown that formal axiology is also empirically valid. Value Science in a Nutshell: Science = Reason + Empiricism, “Formal Axiology” the science of value. Hartman was a philosopher who used the tools of reason, logic and mathematics to build his theory. He was not a committed empiricist and never tested the reliability and validity of his theory or the HVP. For this reason Dr. Leon Pomeroy had little interest in Hartman when Albert Ellis brought his work to my attention. Without plans or preparation, seven years later, fate intervened. Hartman’s friend, the Mexican psychiatrist Salvatore Roquet, M.D., demonstrated the HVP and convinced me to take another look at it and the theory behind it. The mathematical model Hartman used is “set theory.” Dr. Leon Pomeroy accepted it as a first approximation revealing the architecture of “value logic” or “value grammar” implicit in the mind’s native cognitive processing of values and valuations. Dr. Leon Pomeroy appreciated that this approach to values was an exploration of a world where no one had gone before. It was a creative frame of reference that struck me as “ripe” for empirical testing. Hartman called his theory “formal axiology.” This retained the old philosophical concept of “axiology.” Although understandable, Dr. Leon Pomeroy found it a bit confusing as a scientist. Because Hartman had developed a “new axiology,” he called his theory “formal” axiology to distinguish it from the philosophy of axiology. This invited more confusion among those who are not philosophers. No matter, the “new axiology” or “formal axiology,” is grounded in mathematics which distances it from the philosopher’s axiology. This precise construction of theory and HVP-testing inspired several Hartman students to become entrepreneurs marketing The Hartman Value Profile (HVP) to individuals and corporate clients. It also inspired them to view the theory in a way Dr. Leon Pomeroy found unacceptable. Ref *My quick definition of Axiology? Axiology is a philosophy (value theory) and a social science/science of value (formal axiology) mainly involving the “what, why, and how” of “value” the way epistemology approaches “knowledge” as in what is of value/good/worth/beneficial/ or useful? Why is the thing in question of value/good/worth/beneficial/ or useful? How should the value/good/worth/beneficial/ or useful be interacted with? “Axiological Atheism Explained”
*The American Justice system: is often quite fallible which offers criminal more rights, justice, and protection than victims. Victims need more protection, justice, and dignity.
Apologetics Index. (2009). The local church. Retrieved October 8, 2009, from http://www.apologeticsindex.org/l40.html#overview
Bagemihl, B. (1999). Biological exuberance: Animal homosexuality and natural diversity. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Colero, L. (n.d.). A framework for universal principles of ethics. Retrieved October 8, 2009, from http://www.ethics.ubc.ca/papers/invited/colero.html
Crandell, T.L., Crandell, C.H., & Vander Zanden, J.W. (2009). Human development (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Foldvary, E.F. (1980). The soul of liberty: The universal ethic of freedom and human rights. San Francisco, CA: The Gutenberg Press.
Hubpages Inc. (2009). Mass media influence on society. Retrieved October 8, 2009, from http://hubpages.com/hub/Mass-Media-Influence-on-Society
Rigstad, M. (2008). Intro to just war theory. Retrieved October 8, 2009, from http://www.justwartheory.com/#INTRODUCTION
Virtue, Kindness, and Human flourishing?
Proud of Kindness and Caring
I am proud of a lot of achievements in my life but most of all of my acts of kindness and care. I realize that the wisest thing I have ever done was be kind. That said it is often a feat of bravery in a too often harsh and careless world. I feel for and am proud of all who are kind and care. Kindness is hard sometimes but it is never a waste, as it strengths humanity as a whole even if it seems squandered on some of its parts. Kindness has a universal value even if it can be often a trying or tiring endeavor at times it makes a better world.
Champion of Kindness
To be a champion of kindness with all the trying things or people in life can be quite heard at times. But the task of kindness is often self rewarding in how it is life enriching to others around you. Such recipients of acts of kindness are often motivated to themselves do similar acts of kindness, which can lessen the reaction to the noise of all the trying things or people in life.
Kindness is Good for You
“Mortality is delayed, depression is reduced and well-being and good fortune are increased. Committing acts of kindness lowers blood pressure. … Witnessing acts of kindness produces oxytocin, occasionally referred to as the ‘love hormone’ which aids in lowering blood pressure and improving our overall heart-health.” Ref
Are you a friend of kindness?
Let Kindness Reign
We my friend of kindness, can and will inspire the desire for goodness and while not always reached in everything, we will show the term doesn’t mean nothing. May I remember before anything I am or think myself to be, I am human, one of billions all over the earth just other humans like me. We need to see past what can separate us and see how we are all the same. A tree cannot grow healthy without enough water and light. Neither can humanity survive and flourish to greatness without kindness and love. Human beings need support and encouragement to grow healthy as well. We are not alone we are all connected in this life. May I set an example in my thoughts and actions which would even inspire me and empower me to not only champion human freedom but do it with the liberation of kindness.
Please, my fellow champions of humanism, let kindness reign.
Power, Knowledge, and Kindness
When I was young, I valued and longed for power, as I developed I saw the power in knowledge and longed for development of intelligence. Now that I have gained knowledge, I see with the value of wisdom and it is me that has developed for I understand that my greatest power is kindness.
Kindness is Valuing Human Worth
We are worth loving ourselves. Humanity is worth it, so I wish to inspire others to love themselves too. We are all we have in this life and in such a realization we can find and grow the acknowledgment of human worth in everyone around us as much as possible. Sometimes all it takes to start this is to use eyes of love and kindness. Love is the needed feeling when relating with others and kindness is a needed behavior to further human flourishing, such intentionally is valuing human worth.
Hopefully for a Brighter Humanity
I once saw a cool thing at the Denver Colorado airport. A mother was standing with a young child and he started screaming and crying seemingly for nothing she tried to talk to him but he only cried louder. Then the father grabbed his arm and I felt dread that they were going to hurt the child to make him stop but instead the father grabbed him and held him in his arms and only loved the child more and he stopped crying, it was beautiful. I told the father that was commendable as it is easy to get angry even aggressive and to show love and kindness instead was inspiring and made me feel hopefully for a brighter humanity.
Life is just too damn short to not be kind.
Effects of Compassion on the Brain
“Compassion Training Alters Altruism and Neural Responses to Suffering”
“Have you ever wondered if someone with even the hardest exterior could learn sensitivity and love? A new study shows that we can be trained to feel compassion for others just like we learn many other skills. Researchers at the University of Wisconsin Madison discovered human kindness is teachable, and what’s more – it can change how the brain works, making acts of kindness in others and ourselves more commonplace. We’ve been told through the ages that we need to develop compassion for our fellow humans and other sentient creatures on this planet, but that emotional state has been difficult to pin down scientifically. Motivating altruistic behavior in people was a big puzzle – until now.” Ref
“Compassion is a key motivator of altruistic behavior, but little is known about individuals’ capacity to cultivate compassion through training. We examined whether compassion may be systematically trained by testing whether (a) short-term compassion training increases altruistic behavior and (b) individual differences in altruism are associated with training-induced changes in neural responses to suffering. In healthy adults, we found that compassion training increased altruistic redistribution of funds to a victim encountered outside of the training context. Furthermore, increased altruistic behavior after compassion training was associated with altered activation in brain regions implicated in social cognition and emotion regulation, including the inferior parietal cortex and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), and in DLPFC connectivity with the nucleus accumbens. These results suggest that compassion can be cultivated with training and that greater altruistic behavior may emerge from increased engagement of neural systems implicated in understanding the suffering of other people, executive and emotional control, and reward processing.” Ref
Kindness is also remembering we are: “Only Human”
I wish you all positive Human flourishing.
Attacking the Person?
I strive to attack thinking and not people but I sometimes may use dignity attacks or character attacks about behavior or thinking people are doing. I only say things they can quickly fix or change. Then I will pressure them to change it. My point in doing this is help mirror the bad or errored thinking or behavior so they can change if they wish I try to never do it to hurt anyone as I see this as not a productive and potentially abusive.
However, if I only spend my time pointing fingers have I not wasted times I could have also offered helping hands. Thus, even though somethings things need to be harshly pointed out so to is there a need to be involved in the benefit of helping where we can. May my drive to help not be somehow silenced just because there is a need to fight all that is wrong. I want to thank everyone throughout my life that have treated me with compassion and kindness. From something as simple as a smile or comforting word, to things that create impacts so big they were life altering; you have written with the pen of love across my heart and have helped me be a person who strives to also show and treat others with compassion as well as kindness. I do not respect faith, I respect people. I value the sanctity of “rights” of every person to self define their beliefs and do not attack people because of what they believe. I say, attack thinking not people. We who truly value ourselves and others can and do make a better world. May we together fill the world with this shining example of humanity.
*Axiological Dignity Being Theory*
An “Axiological assessment of human beings” shows with an axiological awareness a logic of values is clear which takes as its basic premise that “all persons always deserve positive regard regard.” – Progressive Logic by William J. Kelleher, Ph.D. And the reason why we should are is because we are Dignity Beings.
“Dignity is an internal state of peace that comes with the recognition and acceptance of the value and vulnerability of all living things.” – Donna Hicks (2011). Dignity: The Essential Role It Plays in Resolving Conflict
I am inspired by philosophy, enlightened by archaeology and grounded by science that religious claims, on the whole, along with their magical gods, are but Dogmatic-Propaganda, myths and lies. Kindness beats prayers every time, even if you think prayer works, you know kindness works. Think otherwise, do both without telling people and see which one they notice. Aspire to master the heavens but don’t forget about the ones in need still here on earth. You can be kind and never love but you cannot love and never be kind. Therefore, it is this generosity of humanity, we need the most of. So, if you can be kind, as in the end some of the best we can be to others is to exchange kindness. For too long now we have allowed the dark shadow of hate to cloud our minds, while we wait in silence as if pondering if there is a need to commiserate. For too long little has been done and we too often have been part of this dark clouded shame of hate. Simply, so many humans now but sadly one is still left asking, where is the humanity?
Why Ought We Care?
Because kindness is like chicken soup to the essence of who we are, by validating the safety needs of our dignity. When the valuing of dignity is followed, a deep respect for one’s self and others as dignity beings has become one’s path. When we can see with the eyes of love and kindness, how well we finally see and understand what a demonstrates of a mature being of dignity when we value the human rights of others, as we now see others in the world as fellow beings of dignity. We need to understand what should be honored in others as fellow dignity beings and the realization of the value involved in that. As well as strive to understand how an attack to a person’s “human rights” is an attack to the value and worth of a dignity being. Yes, I want to see “you” that previous being of dignity worthy of high value and an honored moral weight to any violation of their self-ownership. And this dignity being with self-ownership rights is here before you seeking connection. what will you do, here you are in the question ever present even if never said aloud, do you see me now or are you stuck in trying to evaluate my value and assess worth as a fellow being of dignity. A violation of one’s dignity (Which it the emotional, awareness or the emotional detection of the world) as a dignity being can be quite harmful, simply we must see how it can create some physiological disturbance in the dignity being its done to. I am a mutualistic thinker and to me we all are in this life together as fellow dignity beings. Therefore, I want my life to be of a benefit to others in the world. We are natural evolutionary derived dignity beings not supernatural magic derived soul/spirit beings. Stopping lying about who we are, as your made-up magic about reality which is forced causing a problem event (misunderstanding of axiological valuations) to the natural wonder of reality. What equals a dignity worth being, it is the being whose species has cognitive awareness and the expense of pain. To make another dignity being feel pain is to do an attack to their dignity as well as your own. What equals a dignity worth being, it is the being whose species has cognitive awareness and the expense of pain. When I was younger I felt proud when I harmed those I did not like now I find it deserving even if doing it was seen as the only choice as I now see us for who we are valuable beings of dignity. I am not as worried about how I break the box you believe I need to fit as I am worried about the possibility of your confining hopes of hindering me with your limits, these life traps you have decided about and for me are as owning character attacks to my dignity’s needs which can be generalized as acceptance, understanding, and support. As I see it now, how odd I find it to have prejudice or bigotry against other humans who are intact previous fellow beings of dignity, we too often get blinded by the external packaging that holds a being of dignity internally. What I am saying don’t judge by the outside see the worth and human value they have as a dignity being. Why is it easier to see what is wrong then what is right? Why do I struggle in speaking what my heart loves as thorough and as passionate as what I dislike or hate? When you say “an act of mercy” the thing that is being appealed to or for is the proposal of or for the human quality of dignity. May my lips be sweetened with words of encouragement and compassion. May my Heart stay warm in the arms kindness. May my life be an expression of love to the world. Dignity arises in our emotional awareness depending on cognition. Our dignity is involved when you feel connected feelings with people, animals, plants, places, things, and ideas. Our dignity is involved when we feel an emotional bond “my family”, “my pet”, “my religion”, “my sport’s team” etc. Because of the core sensitivity of our dignity, we feel that when we connect, then we are also acknowledging, understanding, and supporting a perceived sense of dignity. Even if it’s not actually a dignity being in the case of plants, places, things, and ideas; and is rightly interacting with a dignity being in people and animals. We are trying to project “dignity developing motivation” towards them somewhere near equally even though human and animals don’t have the same morality weight to them. I am anthropocentric (from Greek means “human being center”) as an Axiological Atheist. I see humans value as above all other life’s value. Some say well, we are animals so they disagree with my destination. But how do the facts play out? So, you don’t have any difference in value of life? Therefore, a bug is the same as a mouse, a mouse is the same as a dolphin, a dolphin is the same as a human, all to you have exactly the same value? You fight to protect the rights of each of them equally? And all killing of any of them is the same crime murder? I know I am an animal but you also know that we do have the term humans which no other animal is classified. And we don’t take other animals to court as only humans and not any other animals are like us. We are also genetically connected to plants and stars and that still doesn’t remove the special class humans removed from all other animals. A society where you can kill a human as easily as a mosquito would simply just not work ethically to me and it should not to any reasonable person either. If you think humans and animals are of equal value, are you obviously for stronger punishment for all animals to the level of humans? If so we need tougher laws against all animals including divorce and spousal or child support and we will jail any animal parent (deadbeat animal) who does not adequately as we have been avoiding this for too long and thankfully now that in the future the ideas about animals being equal we had to create a new animal police force and animal court system, not to mention are new animal jails as we will not accept such open child abuse and disregard for responsibilities? As we don’t want to treat animals as that would be unjust to some humans, but how does this even make sense? To me it doesn’t make sense as humans a different from all other animals even though some are similar in some ways. To further discuss my idea of *dignity developing motivation” can be seen in expressions like, I love you and I appreciate you. Or the behavior of living and appreciating. However, this is only true between higher cognitive aware beings as dignity and awareness of selfness is directly related to dignity awareness. The higher the dignity awareness the higher the moral weight of the dignity in the being’s dignity. What do you think are the best ways to cultivate dignity? Well, to me dignity is not a fixed thing and it feels honored or honoring others as well as help self-helping and other helping; like ones we love or those in need, just as our dignity is affected by the interactions with others. We can value our own dignity and we can and do grow this way, but as I see it because we are a social animals we can usually we cannot fully flourish with our dignity. Thus, dignity is emotionally needy for other dignity beings that is why I surmise at least a partially why we feel empathy and compassion or emotional bonds even with animals is a dignity awareness and response. Like when we say “my pet” cat one is acknowledging our increased personal and emotional connecting. So, when we exchange in experience with a pet animal what we have done is we raze their dignity. Our dignity flourishes with acceptance, understanding and support. Our dignity withers with rejection, misunderstanding, and opposition. Dignity: is the emotional sensitivity of our sense of self or the emotional understanding about our sense of self. When you say, they have a right to what they believe, what I hear is you think I don’t have a right to comment on it. Dignity is the emotional sensitivity of our sense of self or the emotional understanding about our sense of self. To me when we say it’s wrong to kill a human, that person is appealing to our need to value the dignity of the person.’ The person with whom may possibly be killed has a life essence with an attached value and moral weight valuations. And moral weight,’ which is different depending on the value of the dignity being you are addressing understanding moral weight as a kind of liability, responsibility, or rights is actualized. So, it’s the dignity to which we are saying validates the right to life. But I believe all living things with cognitively aware have a dignity. As to me dignity is the name I home to the emotional experience, emotional expression, emotional intelligence or sensitivity at the very core of our sense of self the more aware the hire that dignity value and thus worth. Dignity is often shredded similar to my thinking: “Moral, ethical, legal, and political discussions use the concept of dignity to express the idea that a being has an innate right to be valued, respected, and to receive ethical treatment. In the modern context dignity, can function as an extension of the Enlightenment-era concepts of inherent, inalienable rights. English-speakers often use the word “dignity” in prescriptive and cautionary ways: for example, in politics it can be used to critique the treatment of oppressed and vulnerable groups and peoples, but it has also been applied to cultures and sub-cultures, to religious beliefs and ideals, to animals used for food or research, and to plants. “Dignity” also has descriptive meanings pertaining to human worth. In general, the term has various functions and meanings depending on how the term is used and on the context.” Dignity, authenticity and integrity are of the highest value to our experience, yet ones that we must define for ourselves. People of hurt and harm, you are not as free to attack other beings of dignity without any effect on you as you may think. So, I am sorry not sorry that there is no such thing in general, as hurting or harming other beings of dignity without psychological destruction to the dignity being in us. This is an understanding that once done hunts and harm of other beings of dignity emotionally/psychologically hurts and harms your life as an acceptance needy dignity being, as we commonly experience moral discuss involuntary as on our deepest level as dignity beings. Disgust is deeply related to our sense of morality.
Why Does Power Bring Responsibility?
Think, how often is it the powerless that start wars, oppress others, or commit genocide? So, I guess the question is to us all, to ask, how can power not carry responsibility in a humanity concept? I know I see the deep ethical responsibility that if there is power their must be a humanistic responsibility of ethical and empathic stewardship of that power. I once cared the world about what others thought then I started to realize I had forgotten about impressing the most important person, ME.Now I realize my power to be a shining lihe for goodness and kindness, thus create the world I want to in striving for flushing, which is not a place but a positive potential involvement and promotion; a life of humanist goal precision..To master oneself also means mastering positive prosocial behaviors needed for human flourishing. I want to be so full of love, that the hate of others can no longer fit. I wish to live life as if it matters and strive to treat others as if they are someone. I wish to help where I can as I believe the biggest lie told to us is that we are no one, can do nothing, and make no difference. But I tell you the kindness of others inspires me to be that hope renewed and to become that someone better, won’t you join me? I hope for the flourishing of a better world for all and I wish to champion equality and human liberation. I fight not just for myself but for all people as to me everyone is part of my human family. Will I be brave enough to be kind? Will I possess enough courage to be compassionate? Will my valer reached its height of empathy? I as everyone earns justified respect by our actions that are ethical, just, protecting, and kind. Do I have enough self respect to put my love for humanities flushing, over being brought down some of its bad actors? May we all be the ones doing good actions in the world, to help human flourishing. Don’t let anything hold you back, if you feel like you lost your humanity you can get it back. I know I did. We are the authors of our lives until we are gone, so don’t stop until you’re through. Show the world you can be your best no matter what. Don’t let others write your story for you, be your own champion, you’re worth it and others need you too. I need you.
“Life is too Short to Not be Kind”
Easy Definition of Humanism?
My core definition of humanism is that humans can solve human problems by human means. I am not saying other things can’t or shouldn’t be added to it but to me a definition of humanism must always contain something coherent to such a thinking or not contradict such as I have offered. Thus, why it is appropriate to say, “good without god” when one is a humanist.
Having Mental Health Issues Does Not Make You a Bad Person.
There is nothing wrong with having mental health issues it is normal in life. Some are born that way, some are made that way by others or by experiences. People can have mental health issues and can still be wonderful people. I am a mild sociopath do to extreme abuse as a child, thus it was done to me. I have gotten years of therapy and am a now a productive member of society even though empathy and pro social behavior are like a second language, I still function well.
Rationalism, Freethinker, Humanism & Secular humanism?
*Rationalism is a philosophy in which a high regard is given to reason (specifically logic) and to empirical observation.
*Freethinker a person who forms his or her own opinions about important subjects (such as religion and politics) instead of accepting what other people say.
*Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism).
*Secular humanism is a comprehensive, nonreligious life stance incorporating: A naturalistic philosophy. A cosmic outlook rooted in science. A consequentialist ethical system.
Here is my external pages or content: Facebook Witter Page, My YouTube, My Linkedin, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, Instagram: damienathope, Personal Facebook Page, Secondary Personal Facebook Page, Main Atheist Facebook Page, Secondary Atheist Facebook Page, Facebook Leftist Political Page, Facebook Group: Atheist for Non-monogamy, Facebook Group: (HARP) Humanism, Atheism, Rationalism, & Philosophy and My Email: firstname.lastname@example.org