Religious and Secular laws defined without prejudice

We must first understanding the difference between 'discrimination' and 'discernment'.

Knowing what 'crime against humanity' is; and what is perceived to be a 'crime against religious establishments" are two different concepts, and understanding that difference is imperative to cognitive awareness.

We tend to confuse the two when it comes to making new laws.

The latter has no legal jurisdiction and should be kept out of general public politics.

When we realize the global standing that the U.S. holds in education amongst other nations around the world, it is understandable why the mainstream citizen holds seemingly illogical ideas about many abstract concepts today.

[U.S. ranks 47th +/- in global education]

Discrimination is one of the most profoundly misused and abused concepts today.

Dictionary defines discrimination as:

• the process by which stimuli, differing in some aspects, are responded to differently.
• the quality or power of finely distinguishing.
• the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually. (stereotyping)
• prejudice or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment (racial discrimination)
• to make a difference in treatment, or favor, on a basis other than individual merit.

Discernment is one of the most elusive aspects of the human mind.

In some people it seems to be inherent from birth. In others, it seems to be missing from their personalities altogether.

Dictionary defines discernment as:

• the quality of being able to grasp and comprehend what is obscure, or abstract.
• to detect with senses other than vision.
• to recognize, or identify, as separate or distinct.
• to come to know, or recognize, mentally.
• to see or understand the difference.
• to show insight and/or understanding.

Abstract or critical thinking, (or rationalization) seems to be missing from even the most "educated" and/or influential people in our society today.

This "realization" is especially frightening when we see this inability to know the difference between "irrational discrimination and logical discernment" manifested in our political and religious leaders.

It is unclear whether this "lacking" is actually present, or deliberately interjected by politicians to {as the politicians so aptly describe it } "rile up the bases" ; or to incite personal reactions to turn one political party against the other.

''Ignorance begets intolerance, intolerance begets hatred, and together they beget violence and wars''. (quote by d.william)

And as has been stated many times "there is not profit in peace".

As long as 'greed' is our basic motivation in life, these negative, self serving aspects of human nature will continue to be cultivated, revered, nurtured and practiced - for profit and for control over others.

I recently attempted to have an intelligent conversation with two commenters on one of my recent articles. Their inability to grasp the subtle differences between 'irrational discrimination' and 'logical discernment' greatly disturbed, and perplexed, me for a short period of time.

After doing some inner self examination to decide if it was my shortcomings or theirs, i came to the realization that there are some people who will never be able to understand those subtle difference.

It is beyond my capabilities to teach people abstract thinking in metaphorical terms.

If a person does not possess these skills of logical discernment (logical thinking - common sense - rationalization) by the time they reach adulthood there can be NO "logical discussions" to overcome this shortcoming.

Our education system does not teach, or even sufficiently discuss, the realm of critical thinking in our current educational institutions. Especially in the lower grades when these conceptual teachings are the most critical.

Conservatives have gone so far as even stating that "critical thinking" should not be taught in school.

Their rationale being that when people learn how to use common sense and rationalization they tend to turn away from conservative ideas and religious teachings. Duh!!

This concept is learned, as is hatred, intolerance and bigotry. Whether this lacking is currently unintentional, or not, is debatable, but noteworthy as a problematic societal shortcoming.

If the laws change in this country banning the teaching of critical thinking, it will no longer be debatable as to whether this lacking is "intentional" or "unintentional".

The transition between ignorance and enlightenment is a long and arduous journey for adults steeped in the ignorance of illogical discrimination, but not impossible.

The desire to know and learn the truth must be present, as is true with all other ingrained anti social behaviors.

Last night "Link T.V." had a segment on Scientology; and interestingly enough reached the conclusion that it was indeed a "cult ". {And therefore merits another - "Duh" !!}

There is not one single religion that is not a "cult".

Arguments justifying religion as a useful and valid entity include such points as:

• "more than 90% of the people in the world believe in it as a valid and useful institution of truth, therefore it must be".
• And that statement in itself cannot be more untrue and misleading.

Arguments against religion as a useful and valid entity include such points as:

• "at one time 100% of the people in the world believed that the world was flat, the center of the universe, and the sun revolved around it, ...etc..."

Do you see the subtle complex, abstract, and logical discernment here?

more commonly known as ''deprogramming''.

The following is my condensed version of "auto-conversion" from illogical discrimination to logical discernment using self actualization (examination) as the catalyst.

Note the progressive transitional steps used to reach the logical conclusion>

1. I was taught that: (example: my religion is the only true path to salvation) or (add anything you want to examine here).

• I believe what i was taught. Therefore it must be true.

2. I was taught that: (continue the the add-on example from above and the rest of this exercise.

• I question its validity and relevance. Therefore i question this learned concept.

3. I was taught that: (my religion is...............

• Science, logic, common sense, rationalization - has proven it wrong. Therefore the logical conclusion is that it is false.

4. I was taught this one falsehood as truth. I must re-evaluate other 'learned' concepts.

• Therefore other information must be examined for validity and logic.

5. I was taught that (my religion is.................)

• Reasoning tells me it is illogical. Therefore i must make an intelligent informed decision to either believe what i was taught, or my own logical common sense deductions.

This is a simple "de-programming" technique. Common sense generally prevails.

Of course it is more complex than this condensed version because most people have a true inner struggle, with knowing that what they have believed, (or done in the name of those beliefs), have actually caused harm to other human beings who did not (and do not) deserve those attacks on them.

Ask your Gods, (or your higher power), for forgiveness; make a resolution to not continue to harm others for any reason; and your healing (deprogramming) has begun.

Life can truly be uncomplicated, easy, and enjoyable, if we just learn to accept things for what they are:

• ''God's will'' - not man's interpretation of what God's will is.

The discussion that brought about this hub was in response to comments on the concept that:

• illogical discrimination by the majority against a minority (for any reason) is wrong.

• The opposing argument was that:- murderers (and other criminals) are minorities being discriminated against; thereby making the first statement invalid.

This is where the subtleties of discrimination versus discernment need to be used:

1. denying the basic legal right for same sex marriages by the majority is ''illogical discrimination''

• (the subject of the debate is that the majority does not have the right to deny basic human rights from any minority group)

2. denying murderers (and other criminals) the right to continue to harm others is ''logical discernment''.

• Murder (crimes against humanity) and denying same sex marriages have nothing in common). Thereby negating this as an argument.

3. anything else in 'moral judgments' is immaterial, illogical, and irrelevant.

• Except in the minds of those who persist in judging others without any rational justification - other than their ill conceived beliefs that 'moral sins' against church beliefs, are equal in status to harmful crimes against other humans, or against humanity itself (whether that be the murder of one individual and/or genocide).

by d.william 02/19/2012