Lao Tzu's words about government reflect an attitude of smaller is better. How do we do that?
Fewer agencies "protecting" us.
Fewer laws and regulations.
Fewer subsidies.
Fewer "free" services.
No welfare.
No unemployment.
No social security.
Term limits.
Lower taxes.
I don't know how to do this, how to reboot the USA, but I fear it must be done before there is a complete collapse.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Acceptance
In a post on Dear Sugar at Rumpus.net, "Sugar" says that "Acceptance is a small quiet room."
Disagree. Acceptance is a large tent where all things are welcome. Acceptance is the key to serenity and enlightenment. Ego is a small room where you hear only your own voice.
Disagree. Acceptance is a large tent where all things are welcome. Acceptance is the key to serenity and enlightenment. Ego is a small room where you hear only your own voice.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Taoish Morals
Over on my ...You Might Be a Taoist website I received an email from a gentleman named "mike" who didn't leave me a return email address so I couldn't respond to him personally, so hopefully he stumbles over here...
In reference to the line "If you believe that you can be moral without religious guidelines... you might be a Taoist. (Verse 19)" he asked, "What universally accepted guideline exists to determine where the "moral" line is? If you can indeed be moral, you must have a standard. If there is a standard, then by definition it is universally accepted. What standard would a Taoist use?"
"Moral" from a Philosophical Taoist standpoint would be whatever is in harmony with Tao. Pointing out another's moral failings would not be something a Philosophical Taoist would do.
Having said that, I couldn't imagine that killing anything unless you were going to eat it or prevent it from killing you would be acceptable to a Taoist. I can't imagine that any sort of verbal or physical violence from bullying to rape to war would be acceptable to a Taoist. Lying and stealing are pretty much out.
Maybe verse 54 is a better reference point:
Cultivate Tao within oneself; and one's virtue will be perfected.
Cultivate it within the household, and one's virtue will be abundant.
Cultivate it within the neighborhood, and one's virtue will be enduring.
Cultivate it within the nation, and one's virtue will be overflowing.
Cultivate it within the entire world, and one's virtue will be universal.
In reference to the line "If you believe that you can be moral without religious guidelines... you might be a Taoist. (Verse 19)" he asked, "What universally accepted guideline exists to determine where the "moral" line is? If you can indeed be moral, you must have a standard. If there is a standard, then by definition it is universally accepted. What standard would a Taoist use?"
"Moral" from a Philosophical Taoist standpoint would be whatever is in harmony with Tao. Pointing out another's moral failings would not be something a Philosophical Taoist would do.
Having said that, I couldn't imagine that killing anything unless you were going to eat it or prevent it from killing you would be acceptable to a Taoist. I can't imagine that any sort of verbal or physical violence from bullying to rape to war would be acceptable to a Taoist. Lying and stealing are pretty much out.
Maybe verse 54 is a better reference point:
Cultivate Tao within oneself; and one's virtue will be perfected.
Cultivate it within the household, and one's virtue will be abundant.
Cultivate it within the neighborhood, and one's virtue will be enduring.
Cultivate it within the nation, and one's virtue will be overflowing.
Cultivate it within the entire world, and one's virtue will be universal.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Marriage and Civil Unions
I'm not feeling particularly Taoish today. Or maybe I am.
A homophobic Utah legislator has proposed a law which would include wording that speaks of legal marriage as being between a man and a woman and that marriage and family "predate all governments and are supported by and consistent with the Laws of Nature and Nature's God, the Creator and Supreme Judge of the World, affirmed in the nation's founding Declaration of Independence."
This is so unconstitutional on so many levels that it's not even funny.
Here's my Taoish opinion: Anybody of legal age that wants to get married for any reason should be allowed to. Men to women, men to men, women to women, first cousins, brother to brother, who cares? If a woman with health insurance wants to marry her poor widowed grandmother so that grandma can be covered under granddaughter's plan, let 'em!
Certainly, in spite of what some religions would like you to believe, it has been well proven that you don't need to be married to have kids, so who says that married couples are required to have sex??? (I know, I know... some folks say the sex ended the day they got married.)
Religions have hijacked the word marriage and made it "ordained of God and between a man and a woman". That's bull. It's a contract ordained by the state, and if you don't believe it try and get married without a marriage license.
And on the subject of civil unions, why can't a man or woman enter into as many of those as they want? It's really a contract, so why stop a wanna-be polygamist from "unionizing" a half dozen women? Let 'em! More money in license fees for the county coffers.
And that's my Taoish thought for today.
A homophobic Utah legislator has proposed a law which would include wording that speaks of legal marriage as being between a man and a woman and that marriage and family "predate all governments and are supported by and consistent with the Laws of Nature and Nature's God, the Creator and Supreme Judge of the World, affirmed in the nation's founding Declaration of Independence."
This is so unconstitutional on so many levels that it's not even funny.
Here's my Taoish opinion: Anybody of legal age that wants to get married for any reason should be allowed to. Men to women, men to men, women to women, first cousins, brother to brother, who cares? If a woman with health insurance wants to marry her poor widowed grandmother so that grandma can be covered under granddaughter's plan, let 'em!
Certainly, in spite of what some religions would like you to believe, it has been well proven that you don't need to be married to have kids, so who says that married couples are required to have sex??? (I know, I know... some folks say the sex ended the day they got married.)
Religions have hijacked the word marriage and made it "ordained of God and between a man and a woman". That's bull. It's a contract ordained by the state, and if you don't believe it try and get married without a marriage license.
And on the subject of civil unions, why can't a man or woman enter into as many of those as they want? It's really a contract, so why stop a wanna-be polygamist from "unionizing" a half dozen women? Let 'em! More money in license fees for the county coffers.
And that's my Taoish thought for today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
