About Me

Name: ICONIC FREEDOM
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

ON THE ISSUES: THE VALUE OF LIFE

Posted by ICONIC FREEDOM on Monday, September 14, 2009 12:05:43 PM
How do you decide the value of life?

Where did you derive your ideas regarding the value of life?
 
The answer to these two questions will become the basis for this discussion.

ALL LIFE IS EQUAL
 
Recently the uproar over another czar of Obama’s is making a similar stance, but, as usual, the understanding of this statement is distorted and Sunstein’s mind walks off the map.
 
Stick with me here.
 
The value of life is similar to the free market system.
 
In a free market system we each decide the value of something, as a result, we take action of replacing the dollars in our pockets with the service or product we would rather have. This is a free and voluntary contract.
 
Life, any life, is the same.
 
I make my case by the following examples:
 
* You value your life more than Jihad, so you’d take Jihad’s life
* You value a cow or chicken less than your dog, so you butcher and eat them.
* You value a wild deer less than your pet cat, so you hunt it down and eat it.
 
Still not convinced? Okay, how about some of these personally placed values:
 
* I value my family’s lives more than my friends’ lives.
* I value my friends’ lives more than my neighbors’ lives.
* I value my neighbors’ lives more than an unknown American’s life.
* I value an unknown American’s life more than I value a foreigner’s life.
* I value a foreigner’s life more than I value an animal’s life.
* I value an animal’s life more than a plant’s life.
* I value a plant’s life more than a bacteria’s life.

Life begins at conception.
 
The value placed on that life is subjective, meaning personal opinion, by you the individual placing the value you’ve decided. This upholds your freedom to value this life much more than say someone across the world, that doesn’t.
 
We take life every day for safety, sustenance, sport, disregard or comfort.
 
How we decide the taking of that life is predicated on your philosophy. To make the assumption that the value of life is endowed through spiritual philosophy is to negate those who utilize no such beliefs but still uphold the value and regard for life; value is not exclusive to a party or philosophy. If you want to utilize a spiritual philosophy no one would infringe on your rights of that choice, however, you don’t need spiritual beliefs to have regard for life.
 
Some people have a presumption of "existence", however, this again is personal and subjective. To impose such presumption onto others infringes on their personal freedom of thought. You don't want to be told what to believe and neither do others.
 
We decide as a society that we want to favor our own species and of course we would – it’s probably a good idea since we want to continue the human race.
 
Every species favors its own. Of course, we subjectively decide which of our species’ life we take in war, in abortion, in defense, in anger. However, the value we place on each life is purely subjective to the individual.
 
The statement that a “dog engages in rational thought more” than a baby, well, to some degree is true because a baby can’t live on its own or fend for itself, but we favor the baby and hold higher value to the baby, which again, to me and you makes perfect sense – we favor our own species, why wouldn’t we. As a society we understand the vulnerability of the baby who cannot take care of itself. Again, very logical.
 
This discussion is so important in the dialogue regarding the value of life and abortion. While we would like to see abortions reduced greatly in our society, unfortunately, reality tells us that some women have not developed personal responsibility to the extent that they aren’t using abortion as contraception.

One great step forward toward this reduction is to stop having pluralistic tax dollars funding abortions.
 
Let those who want to have this option or who agree with this choice, fund the clinics that would provide such a service. In this way nobody pays for something they don’t agree with until we move past this.
 
Another great step is to let the free markets create educational centers funded by individuals and corporations where women could go to get counseling, education, learn ALL the options available to them in order to support them moving to developing personal responsibility.
 
Yet one more option is to create a network of mom’s who can swap out babysitting time so that women who find themselves having an unexpected expectancy, can still work and trade some of their time-off babysitting with other moms and eliminate the need for welfare because these women will be working. They may struggle and have challenges, but society cannot absolve them of their choices or save them from the reality they created through their choices.
 
Free markets can support solutions. 
 
When we educate people they move closer and closer to accurate choices.
 
How do we know these choices are accurate? The choices are upholding freedom, having regard for life, and accepting personal responsibility for each choice, having the ability to respond to each choice, all the while making their choice at no cost to others who didn’t consent.
 
One trap you don’t want to fall into is the trap of applying morality of your value to the greater society.
 
Morality is like value placed: personal opinion.
 
When you start arguing it, you’re really just arguing whose opinion is valued more. Well, obviously, each person thinks his opinion is more valuable. It’s circular and useless. You can't "prove" an opinion is fact, if you did, then it's a fact and not arguable.
 
It’s more powerful to debate freedom – there is no capitulating freedom, either someone is for freedom or they are not. Unmasking their need for control will dismantle the attempt to control and reveal who they are.
 
You’ll gain more solid footing by upholding freedom, and then look to how free society in a free market can come up with great answers regarding the personal issues that each of us places value and would like some resolution.

All done in the name of freedom – ICONIC FREEDOM!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WE ARE NOT UN-AMERICAN! WE UNITE IN FREEDOM!

Posted by ICONIC FREEDOM on Tuesday, August 11, 2009 2:18:04 PM
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ON THE ISSUES: FREEDOM OF RELIGION, HEALTHCARE AND EVERYTHING ELSE!

Posted by ICONIC FREEDOM on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:29:08 PM

Recently on FoxNews, Huckabee spoke in one segment with John Stossel about freedom and free choice when it comes to healthcare and a variety of issues, Huck even turns to the camera to dramatically emphasize its importance. 

In the very next segment Huck’s making the case regarding the United States as a Christian nation, attempting to credential it by stating that the “intentions” of the founders are to be upheld rather than what was actually written in our Constitution. 

We call this hypocrisy. standing for one thing while doing another.

Question:  how is it that the great founders of this nation got it, Huck, but you can’t seem to?   That irrespective of their belief systems, we needed to be objective in such matters so that each can decide for self?  Does this not support the very freedom and free choice that Stossel spoke about in the previous segment?

Freedom of choice cannot just be about the options you happen to agree with; just as free speech cannot just be about the speech you want to hear.

Let’s conduct a thought experiment.  Let’s give in to the idea that we’ll unanimously call ourselves a Christian nation, but with these caveats:  gay marriage will be enacted and abortion will remain unchallenged.

Here is the question to ask yourself:  are you willing to endorse it?

If you’re not willing to do so, is it because what you really want is policy enacted based on your religious beliefs?  

It really has nothing to do with just being recognized or called a Christian nation, it’s about much more than just that – it’s about controlling others with your ideological belief systems?  

Existence is a belief system, which is inherently subjective: meaning – opinion.  No American upholding freedom would infringe on your freedom of thought or opinion.

The very nature of bigotry, though, is one group telling its people that all the other groups are not valid; devalued in their belief systems; yours is the only true belief system.

Are you seeking religious dominance or pluralistic acceptance?   One is control, the other freedom.

Branding something is antithetical to freedom.  

If you’ve branded something, then it has no potential growth.   You’ve eliminated the probability of change; no revision or progressing toward something greater or more useful, more appropriate for the time, more convenient, more efficient.   

Thank goodness Edison didn’t think that about the word “light”.

Suppose that a cola company creates a product that becomes competitive with Coke.  The fact is that our founders drank Coke, so this new cola really has no value and we’ll even go so far as to disdain or devalue those who don’t drink Coke and especially those who drink no cola beverages at all.  

Any other drink that looks similar will not be considered, it has to be Coke – even if it’s a product that another company makes and wants to call Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, Tab, RC Cola, Diet Rite – doesn’t matter.

Since Coke was first and some of the founders enjoyed this beverage – they got to decide how the rest of the nation is going to be affected by such choices; doesn’t matter if you like Coke or not.   Even if some of the founders decided later to stop drinking Coke or drank 7-up instead, it won’t matter because Coke was the first and we must uphold that tradition.

Now, if tradition is your platform, why don’t you repeal slavery and women’s suffrage – these were traditions of our founders.   Why cherry pick which traditions; isn’t cherry picking, itself, subjective?

Look, limiting choice is nothing more than manipulation and control of others.  With the exception of your own, no life is for you to decide.

Just like the Coke story, religion and Christianity have come to be the foundations for attempting to control others with subjective morals and values; subjective ingredients. 

The problem is that you are not living in freedom by controlling others.   In fact, you’re actually opposing freedom since the very nature of religion is that you’re accountable to something or someone outside yourself.  

Why can’t I be accountable to myself?  “You can’t be trusted to make the right decisions!”  What political party does that sound like?

If your belief system demands that you believe yourself defective from birth, that’s fine.  Or that self-accountability is anarchy in your mind, that’s fine, too.  No American who upholds freedom would stop you.  But, what is your motivation for insisting everyone else hold such beliefs?

“Anarchy in the streets” is a scare tactic to do what?  Control your choices away from self-reliance.

It’s as if you’re too stupid to figure out how NOT to infringe on the freedoms of your fellow man. 

It’s as if you’re NOT to be trusted with figuring out how to make personal decisions for yourself toward your own self-interest whereby you create self-governance, self-reliance and self-wealth.  

Let’s face it, you just don’t get it and need someone else to decide for you.

Once again, if you want that life, no American who upholds freedom would stop you, but what is your motivation for insisting that everyone follow you down that path?  Is this some shared suffering in your mind? “If I have to be in bondage to this belief system, so do you!” mentality?

Again, what political party does this sound like?  Aren’t these the same arguments about healthcare?

If you hold the same ideological "belief-control systems" like the opposition, you’ll never advance freedom in the political arena.    Better to hold your belief systems in private for yourself & family, and then speak only of limited government and personal responsibility with regard to elections, our representatives and policies.

Look at reality over the centuries:  Freedom keeps advancing, not controls.

Develop Personal Responsibility  through accountability, which means you own each choice you make in life; responsibility means you have the ability to respond to each choice you make in life; consent means making each choice certain that the choice is not at the cost of another human being without his consent – voluntary contract; the byproduct is every virtue you could possible muster in your mind.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ON THE ISSUES: FREEDOM OR RIGHT?

Posted by ICONIC FREEDOM on Sunday, July 19, 2009 10:44:51 AM
 
When we speak as Americans are we speaking about what is freedom or what is "right"? 

Recently at the Gilbert, Arizona Tea Party I heard a woman standing next to me commenting, to no one in particular, as the speaker pontificated about being “right” for being present at the party, “I like being right!”
 
Indeed, I’m sure you do.
 
What happens when we pursue what is “right”? We pursue a personal agenda.
 
When we seek what is "right" for others, we seek to control others and their choices by stating that they are “wrong”, rather than pursuit of what is free choice to decide for self. If that free choice is at no cost to another American unless he consents or contracts to such, it has no right or wrong implications except to the individuals involved.
 
When we limit choice, we seek to control – irrespective of any “do good” intentions of such behavior. The road to hell is paved replete with good intentions and unintended consequences.
 
We do not know for another human being how his life ought to be lived; only he can know that.
 
You insult others when you implicitly state, “you can’t be trusted to make these decisions for yourself, and therefore, I will decide what is right for you".
 
We each hold values and morals which are meaningful to us; some shared by others, some not shared by others. Freedom upholds the opportunity for each American, for each human being, to pursue personal values toward happiness of self.  Again, so long as it is not at a cost to others without their consent – it’s what free market systems are all about – consent and contract.
 
Where does this pursuit of happiness go astray?

When Americans attempt to make their “right” as a “right way to live” for everyone and demand subjugation or conversion to such “right” choices.
 
Be assured, some of your choices are just as distasteful to others as theirs' are to you.
 
If you seek to impose your “right way to live” legislatively or otherwise – that’s force; it’s not free choice any longer, it is manipulation for personal agenda and personal gain off the backs of others.
 
Do we uphold freedom when we persuade or when we force?
 
It’s not about being right, it’s about being free.
 
How much freedom are you willing to live in your own life? How much freedom are you willing to extend to others? Is the level of freedom you desire in your life directly proportional to the freedom you are extending to others?
 
We elevate ourselves toward being judgmental of others when we seek to impose what is “right” rather than what is freedom and free choice.
 
Some people like being controlled; it feeds their victimization of self. What kind of person are you who would engage, support and encourage such behavior. What does it say about you.
 
If elections are about winning in order to influence and increase levels of freedom, it’s easy to gather a mob of those who agree, it’s more telling if you’re able to persuade others to see the side of freedom.
 
The more freedom you live in your life, the more you are willing to extend to others. When you limit freedom in yourself, you will limit the freedoms of others.
 
Just because people agree or share your opinions does not credential those opinions toward law by which we control other people’s choices which have no cost to our own.
 
It’s not about being right, it’s about being free.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ON THE ISSUES: MORALITY

Posted by ICONIC FREEDOM on Sunday, July 12, 2009 12:37:58 PM
 In America, we uphold freedom of the individual to decide his life. Our charter in this Republic protects the mob from the individual to seek his pursuit of happiness without threat of those who have dissimilar viewpoints, choices, and sources of morality & values.
 
Value is in the eye of the beholder, so is morality.

Morals are subjective. If you set a criterion for self & insist others be in abeyance to your criteria, then you seek to control others – you limit choice.

People don’t like the idea of individuals deciding their own morals because they lose the “moral high ground” argument by which to tell others how to live, what choices to make, what values to hold and sit in judgment on where someone else has “gone wrong”. You want to be “right”.
 
If you want to be “right” you’ve already abandon freedom for your personal agenda of imposing how you think everyone else should live. For what purpose do you need to be right?

If morals are only from within then affirmations outside you are not found and leave you floundering for approval. From whom are you seeking this approval? For what purpose would you be seeking approval outside yourself? Reward? Recognition? Favor? Righteousness?

Seeking of the any of the above for your choices negates your altruistic action; you do it for other reasons not as a natural choice you would otherwise bestow upon your fellow man.
 
If you’re helping the poor, for example, to seek favor from your personal deity, then you do so off the backs of others – where’s integrity in that? Using other people to get ahead? Ouch!
 
The poor need guidance toward self-reliance not a temporary-feel-good-in-the-moment handout which lands them right back where they were. There are solutions for that problem with the grace & generosity of others, certainly.

All interest is self- interest. Even if your choice is to feel good about what you’re doing – that’s self-interest in feeling good. There is no interest that is not self-interest.

Further, is it in your mind that everyone has to agree with your morals & values? How does that uphold the freedom of individuals to decide their own life which may not look like your own? Where is the free market value system in that kind of dictatorship?

The solution? Get morality out of your life – it archaic, antediluvian and useless. Instead, develop personal responsibility where you own your choices (Accountability), you have the ability to respond to your choices (Responsibility) and make your choices at no cost to others without their consent (Contract).
 
From this comes integrity. True action of self toward the development of self not on the backs of others.
 
It also deflates political argument of what is or is not "moral" with regard to running government and society - it leaves it clean with the directive: "where is the upholding of individual freedom?"

We don't care about your morals & judgment of others, we care about how each will make his way in this life in total freedom of choice, not dictatorship.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

DO YOU LIVE IN HYPOCRISY?

Posted by ICONIC FREEDOM on Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:14:54 AM
 

You live in hypocrisy if you claim you want freedom and free choice but only for the choices you approve of

You live in hypocrisy if you claim you love free market systems then ask for subsidies

You live in hypocrisy if you claim judges are legislating from the bench but have no issue with decisions made for which you agree

You live in hypocrisy if you claim you endorse free speech but claim that regulations on television, et.al. is needed

You live in hypocrisy if you claim BO to provide evidence of jobs saved but will argue your god’s existence without evidence

You live in hypocrisy if you claim to believe in gorebal warming but can’t explain the scientific method

You live in hypocrisy if you claim you uphold life but have no issue with the killing of life you “deem appropriate”

You live in hypocrisy if you claim America as a Christian Nation but have issue with BO claiming we’re a Muslim nation

You live in hypocrisy when you push green marketing at work but burn fossil fuels like everyone else

You live in hypocrisy when you support universal health care but currently would not be caught dead in a county hospital

You live in hypocrisy when you claim to be liberal but act to control the behaviors of others

You live in hypocrisy when you vote to raise taxes to shelter the homeless but you do not donate all your expendable income to the homeless

You live in hypocrisy when you claim to be Christian but have no intention in following every word of the Bible

You live in hypocrisy when you rely upon religious freedom for yourself but push to enact laws based on your own flavor of religion

You live in hypocrisy when you denounce corporations and then go to Wal-Mart for the huge selection and inexpensive options

You live in hypocrisy when you smoke cigarettes and condemn others for being fat

You live in hypocrisy when you cry that homosexual marriage will ruin the integrity of marriage while you are having an affair or neglecting your family

You live in hypocrisy when you claim to be a Christian but have not even read the Bible

You live in hypocrisy when you benefit from inventions and scientific discoveries based on the applications of natural selection while denouncing evolution

You live in hypocrisy when you say you love the US Constitution but you are opposed to gun rights

You live in hypocrisy when you say you love religious freedom but claim the US is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles

You live in hypocrisy when you complain about the national debt when you have no savings and have personal debt

You live in hypocrisy when you complain but do not vote

You live in hypocrisy when you say you love freedom and democracy but see no responsibility to help others obtain them

You live in hypocrisy when you claim your religious beliefs are not subjective when you have no evidence to the contrary

You live in hypocrisy when you fear we are destroying our planet but continue to have more than two children

You live in hypocrisy when you complain about welfare but would seek government assistance in the form of student aid and tax deductions once the opportunity arises

You live in hypocrisy when you denounce the enforcement of our laws against hiring illegal immigrants as a humanitarian principle yet patronize those establishments that pay those immigrants’ substandard wages

You live in hypocrisy when you claim to love liberty but tax goods like alcohol and cigarettes based on your desire to control the behaviors of others

You live in hypocrisy when you say the government is "We the people" yet you look to the government to take care of you and solve your problems

You live in hypocrisy when you claim to believe but don't know empirically why

You live in hypocrisy when you denounce laws that target a segment of our population unless they do not affect you personally

You live in hypocrisy when you oppose laws that benefit a segment of our population unless they benefit you personally

You live in hypocrisy when you claim all men are created equal yet deny them rights to marry

You live in hypocrisy when you say you are not a hypocrite

You live in hypocrisy when you tout the need to reduce carbon footprints then catch a flight to attend a global warming conference conducted across the world

You live in hypocrisy when you say you search for truth but ignore evidence

The lack of development toward personal responsibility is what creates hypocrisy in our society. Develop this within yourself and hypocrisy disappears. Own your choices. Have the ability to respond to your choices. Make your choices at no cost to another without his consent.

The byproduct of this development is integrity. Hypocrisy lacks integrity, do you live in hypocrisy?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ALL LIFE IS EQUAL

Posted by ICONIC FREEDOM on Monday, June 01, 2009 11:44:26 AM

 
While the news of Dr. Tiller may come as a welcome action for those who wish to end abortion, it does nothing to further this cause.

All life is equal across the board.

How did you personally derive the value you place on a life – any life?

The derivation, source if you will, that you pulled such “value” from is subjective – personal emotional opinion.  No doubt that Americans uphold individual freedom to make such personal choice and place such individual value.

Having regard for reality, one must then own where life itself is being taken on a moment – to – moment basis in our world.  We take the animal life and plant life for sustenance.   We take the intruder’s life or jihad’s life because of safety.   We take the animal life because of sport.

We take life every day, every moment of every day.

You say certain life is innocent?  And how did you reach that conclusion?  The same personal subjective opinion.

Who put it into your head that human life was elevated above any other life? 

What is the self-interest of those that would tell you that human life is elevated?

If this is your rationale,  would you not think that elephants then think themselves elevated – they’re bigger than you, can squash you in a moment’s notice, care not for your existence.

What are the implications of you as an individual when you subjugate others?  Think that you are superior?  Do you think this because you can speak?  Our language is merely what we’ve developed over time as a means to communication; other animals have developed their own way of communicating through sounds and actions.

Do you think that animals know that you’re a human?  That when you speak, your words mean anything?   Consider that the sounds we make are merely sounds to animals and nothing more.  Consider that your energy & emotion behind those sounds is what another animal is experiencing because it’s energy.   Emotion is energy in motion – from one thing to another, be that person, animal, plant, etc. 

Don't believe it?  The next time you're playing with your dog, smile, laugh and say words about how silly or dumb the dog is and watch it continue to play with you as though you're not saying anything negative.   When you're angry, how does the dog know?  Your words or your energy? 

REALITY

Taking life is taking life.  You can make all the rationalizations you want.  You can create for yourself all the justifications you desire.  At the end of the day though the objective observation – data only – is that the life is taken by the life that took it.

Respect for life continues to develop in our society.  We’ve come a long way from times where we killed people simply for having a difference of opinion.   Wait, nope, that’s right, killing the doctor was a difference of opinion.  Jihad killing Americans was a difference of opinion.

When we each develop personal responsibility and regard for reality, whether we like the reality or not, our nation & world will advance to stages where the taking of life is respected more for the mere fact that it was life.   We will also seek to limit that which we take of life and that which we waste when we take certain life.

Everyone is predator and everyone is prey.   The reality of life is – who gets to whom first.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SELF-IDENTIFICATION AS CREDENTIAL

Posted by ICONIC FREEDOM on Tuesday, May 26, 2009 6:12:21 PM
Any individual who utilizes their background by which to seek credential are doing self and those they attempt to represent, a huge disservice and here’s why:

If you claim yourself as a “Latino” in order to create exclusivity by which to engender a credential of qualification, you then set yourself up for the representation of said label.  In doing so you create the illusion that you are the best representation for your special interest, a leader by their definition and will now be accountable for the outcomes.

Sotomayor, like Obama before her, is being touted as the “first Latino...” you fill in the rest.  In representing her “constituency”, what of her integrity, choices made along the way, actions, words & deeds become attributed to her and the group she represents?  ALL of them.

Creating a credential of self-identification by which to influence is utilized for manipulation purposes only. The creation of “I’m like you” policy sets up any situation for attribution of failure or success to the entire group.  When we identify as Americans we are representing Americans. In our trials & errors in life we are accountable (own our choices) and must be response-able to those choices. United we stand.

So, too, when such credential is sought & extolled, will those who use their “background” as such for influence in our society; united they fall.  
 
If Obama works in error to the destruction of our nation in any capacity, he will bear on his back the entire Black community because he and the community utilized his race as a credential for election. 

You can’t say the election is historic if you are not pointing to that which makes it historic: his race. 

Otherwise, the election would be nothing more than ordinary; nothing unusual, nothing to focus on except the policies that someone seeks office to represent.   

And yes, voting for someone because of their race is racism, not just voting against him.

In seeking policy to represent ALL Americans you will find that fewer & fewer policies actually need creating because too much is subjective in any one American’s life. What does this mean? 

It means that only a handful of policies seek endorsement by the entire American population lest they be special interests seeking favor to the exclusion of other Americans or entitlement by which it is at a cost to others without their consent.

Both the Latino community and the Black community are setting themselves up to victimize themselves by aligning & endorsing such identity as if it’s a reason to nominate, vote for or otherwise endorse someone for any office.

The individual must stand on their own, irrespective of any “special interest” toward the representation of all Americans. Speak to the issues which affect all Americans. Uphold the law which affects all Americans. 

Extracting yourself for identification purposes toward manipulation of the electorate in any capacity, shows the inability to make the case for all Americans to support you. It emphasizes the desire for special privilege, entitlement and treatment.

Entitlements are sought by those who cannot otherwise compete in a free market individual-value-placed, society. Equality is opportunity, not entitlement. Equality is not synonymous with ability. You either have the ability to lead or you do not. Your race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, and yes, even your political party is irrelevant. 

If a politician in a party finds him or herself in political hot water, it is the entire party that is affected, why? Because he or she set it up that way by stating they represented EVERYONE in that party.  

Known by the company you keep, is a street that goes in both directions.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

FREEDOM OF RELIGION

Posted by ICONIC FREEDOM on Friday, May 15, 2009 9:43:00 PM

While there are many in this nation who wish to self-identity the nation as Christian, they do so to the negation of all other religions which existed at the time.  To continue to make the claim now negates all the newer religions developed since then.  Additionally, it misrepresents the nation, which is inherently pluralistic, & seeks ownership in addition to disenfranchising others.


Why would people want to claim ownership of something except with the intention of wanting to impose their rules?


When you were growing up, didn’t you hear your parents say, “As long as you’re living in my house you’re going to live by my rules”?


Is that not what those who claim this nation as a Christian nation are saying, “As long as you’re living in my nation, you’re going to live by my rules”?


Further, what of those people who hold no religion, where is there representation?   What of those who are Protestant, Muslim, Mormon?


Freedom of religion is freedom from religion.


While you think yourself an individual who upholds freedom, regard for reality exposes the fact that you only uphold freedom & free choice as long as the free choice is the one you would make.


Talking about your religion in public is like talking about your sex life – it’s none of anybody’s business. It’s personal. It’s subjective. It belongs to you. Politicians have no business disenfranchising Americans simply because they don’t “believe” as the politician does.


Ask yourself a couple of questions:


Do I think that people can only be good if they are religious?
 

Do I think that religious people have a copy write on being a good person?


If religion didn’t exist would I still be a good person?
 

If you answer “no” to that last question, then you’re no better than the criminals who would seek to infringe on the freedoms of others having made choices at a cost to others without consent.


No doubt that any American who upholds freedom would infringe on your freedom to believe. However, it’s interesting that you would have no issue imposing your religious views onto others to the extent of limiting their freedom.


Either you are a good person because that’s who you are, or you are not. There is no bible or god who will make you that way.


You can’t buy good relations, you can only be good relations.


Accountability (ownership of your choices), Responsibility (the ability to respond to your choices), Consent (make no choice in life that is without the consent of another or at a cost to another without consent)


The by-product of this assimilation is that you become the “good” person you desire to be through respect of humanity, respect for individual freedom & free choice, respect for others who don’t think, act or behave like you do.


People who say they only behave because of their bible, are potential sociopaths who would, without such dictatorial guidance, otherwise commit crime upon their fellow American.


IF RELIGION DIDN’T EXIST WOULD YOU STILL BE & STRIVE TO BE A GOOD PERSON?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (10) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE AGE OF SUBJECTIVISM

Posted by ICONIC FREEDOM on Monday, April 20, 2009 12:13:56 PM

We are living in the age of subjectivism.

What is subjective, the emotional opinions of the individual observation. 

What is objective, the facts and data of observation.

Our world continues to increase the idea that each individual’s emotional opinion bears any weight when it comes to the policy making of our nation.  It is the very disease of this idea that continues to corrode our nation with the inability to develop. 

What is disease?  The lack of freedom. 

Health = Freedom, the more you have of one the more you have of the other.

Recently a friend read my book and upon completion said that he didn’t think it had any emotion in it – my exact intent.  Why, because when deciding freedoms for others we need to be objective.  We cannot allow the freedoms of another individual to be taken away because we have an emotional opinion about their personal choices in life. 

If the choices of another are at no cost to us without our consent, then why limit that individual’s freedom? 

The contradiction of claiming your personal subjective opinion as reason enough to take away another’s freedom is itself against freedom.  Any free human being wanting to decide for self the direction of his life must have all freedoms allowed to do so. 

Living in the age of Subjectivism is to subjugate one person’s opinions over another’s.  Demanding your government to participate in this illegal action reveals the nature of the individual who, from deep within, truly does not assimilate freedom but the desire and compelling nature to control others for personal self-interest.

No politician is ever working for the people – every politician is working in personal self-interest every moment of every day.   To the extent a politician would say he or she wants something for his constituency, it is only because he or she seeks something as a reward in one form or another, typically on the backs of others.

The question each American should ask: “What is that personal self-interest?”

If it is not bringing about more freedom and free choice for the individual, then no matter the rationalization, good intention or attempted good deed, that politician seeks to control and manipulate; to create a cost to others without their consent.

Enjoy Subjectivism in your personal life – knock yourself out.  Leave objective facts & data for the public square so that much can be accomplished without subjugation of others and their freedoms for personal self-interest. 

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

MESSAGE TO AMERICANS: IT'S NOT OKAY TO NOT BELIEVE!

Posted by ICONIC FREEDOM on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 10:01:52 PM

Many in our nation self-identify the nation as a Christian nation, but which Christian nation?   Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Fundamental, Liberal?  What of those who are not Christian but Jewish or Buddhist?

“We are a God-fearing nation.”  Really?  Which God?  Yahweh, Spirit Earth, Manitou?

“We are a Bible-based nation.”  Really?  Which part of the Bible, Old Testament, New Testament, or both?  What of those with reliance upon other scriptural text such as the Book of Mormon?

If it's not okay to not believe, then all those who don't believe in a god are disenfranchised and not represented in America?

Are the religious then stating we are a religious nation, much like other religious nations where you have to believe?

Are the religious then stating that anyone who is not a believer is merely being "allowed" and "tolerated" to exist in this society that would otherwise rather not have them here?

The implication is that you're not okay if you're not a believer. 

Yet, I would hold my accountability and responsibility up to any person who makes a claim of believing that my actions are steeped in greater freedom than their own. 

That my conscious choices are more genuine than their own as I make my choices out of responsibility & accountability - I seek no reward from a source outside myself. 

I make each choice at no cost to others without their consent.

Further, if each choice made is at no cost to others without their consent - how does that not uphold the Constitution and freedom of choice for every human being, irrespective of my personal choices or beliefs?

I place no burden or obligation onto another human being for which he did not place upon himself.

I go a step further and will not engage with a person who is not living in personal freedom if he is attempting to make a choice at a cost to himself whereby my participation would be taking advantage of his inability to live free

I treat all life equal across the board

I silence no opinion

I endorse that each care for self and all will be cared for

And how is it that the religious elevate themselves above my conscious actions or existence?

Identification is ownership.
 
To say “We are” is to claim identification – not everyone identifies as the same, what of those Americans who don’t identify as you do. 
 
To claim a specific identification is to negate a pluralistic society. 
 
Anyone who states to you “We ARE a Christian nation” negates every American who is not.   
 
We ARE Americans is complete and inclusive.
 
Those that project intention from the Founders as credential, irrespective of the fact that the Constitution does not endorse ANY religion but supports the individual in seeking that answer himself, does so in order to uphold one belief over another – to create an identification and impose ownership.
 
We can’t be a little bit pregnant and we can’t limit just a little bit of freedom – we either acknowledge the inherent natural freedom of every human being or we do not.  
 
And while someone may personally "believe" in a god, that doesn't mean everyone else does. 
 
What does it say about an individual who claims his belief, knowing not every American believes the same?  
 
It negates holding that all men are equal - we can't have equality if we discriminate based on "beliefs" and limit freedom as a result.
 
Beliefs are opinions, not facts.  
 
Beliefs are personal experience, not facts. 
 
Beliefs are subjective by the mere fact that someone can hold a different belief (opinion) and the only fact is that two people disagree. 
 
Unless the belief (opinion) is proven to be a fact, it’s just a personal subjective opinion.  
 
To uphold one opinion over another is to discriminate. 
 
To uphold freedom for all opinions and no favor to one over the other does not discriminate.
 
A Free Nation that upholds Freedom, Free Choice and individual freedom - notice how that doesn't negate anyone's beliefs, politics, etc. - it's all inclusive of all human beings, Americans or not. 
 
THAT’S freedom, baby!

*Shout out to my friend Mike for his contribution to this post*
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

DECAYING MORAL VALUES? HARDLY

Posted by ICONIC FREEDOM on Saturday, April 04, 2009 2:44:26 PM
Our Decaying Moral Values?

Recently an article by Dr. Walter E. Williams ran in syndication espousing that the reason for our decaying society was the lack of morals, specifically, he said this:

The reason our struggles occur in society is because of the lack of responsibility and the lack of development in teaching how an individual becomes responsible. 

Accountability is about ownership of your choices in life.

Response-ability is about being able to respond to those choices.

Making a choice at no cost to others without their consent upholds freedom for every human being to decide the direction of life and where each choice will be spent, irrespective of another’s subjective opinion.

ICONIC FREEDOM: Living Your Life At No Cost To Others Without Their Consent

Morals and Values are subjective – emotionally driven decisions rooted in opinions from derived sources in this world which a person just happens to agree with.  Because you "share" or "agree" with others, doesn't lend credential, either - it is just an observation that you happen to agree or share the same moral or value. 
 
People agreed, shared and had the opinion the world was flat, Jews were inferior, women ought not vote, Blacks were less than human - were those ideas "right" just because they were shared, agreed or had "majority" opinion or put to a vote?  
 
Claiming moral decay is to imply you know what is moral.  Perhaps you do - for yourself.  You cannot possible know what is moral for another person.  You cannot possibly know what is of value to another person. 
 
Espousing "tyranny" or "anarchy" is simply incendiary language thrown out as an emotional Molotov-cocktail in order to justify your desire to control others.   Laws never stopped a person from doing what he or she was bent on doing.  If laws stopped behavior, then murder, theft, rape and the like would no longer exist.  It's illogical. 

Subjective opinions are vast and many – as such it is impossible to tell another person what moral or value they must uphold for only the individual can decide for self.

Imposing your morals and values on others is taking away their free choice, their freedom to live, and their freedom to create. 

Taking away choice is controlling and manipulating for your own self-interests. 

Giving credential to your personal authority is a freedom upheld in our Constitution: Freedom of Religion.

Forcing others to adhere to or believe your credential or authority is totalitarianism. 

Morals and Values are subjective to the individual

Freedom is for EVERYONE

When we develop our society to understanding the simple precepts outlined of Accountability, Response-ability and making choices at no cost to another without consent, we will then create the world in which we espouse we want to live, a world of FREEDOM.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SUBJECTIVE vs. OBJECTIVE

Posted by ICONIC FREEDOM on Thursday, March 19, 2009 8:36:00 AM
SUBJECTIVE vs. OBJECTIVE: Knowing the Difference

It seems like an unusual and rather simplistic topic for a blog, yet it is turns out that these two words are quickly becoming the most misused words in our political & public square.

Life is easy and natural when you are living in Health = Freedom; the more you have of one the more you have of the other. 

SUBJECTIVE: feelings, personal experience, emotions, opinion

OBJECTIVE: facts, without emotion, without feelings, data

Why would this be a topic for a blog, you ask? I’m glad you asked.

Today, more than ever, turn on the television, the radio, read a blog, a news website – and most, if not all that is expressed, are SUBJECTIVE; people expressing their emotions, feelings and personal experiences.  Great things, do you agree? So, what’s the problem?

The problem is that these emotions and feelings, which are subjective opinions, are being treated like they’re OBJECTIVE FACTS – they are not.

If you believe that Wall Street is greedy that is SUBJECTIVE OPINION and not a fact. Why?  Because you would have to define what greed is and then by what authority have you derived such an idea?   Whatever your answer, even more questions will follow.

Why do you get to decide? Why is it that your derivation for criteria of greed is the definition of greed? Is it merely because others agree with you?   Did you take a vote and it was decided? One man’s greed is another’s living wage.  

If you believe that abortion is wrong, by what authority?  What is your derivation for setting the criteria? Why your derivation?  Why your criteria?  Who gets to decide the criteria to begin with?

How about marriage, what of that criterion for deciding? Why do you get to decide?  What is the derivation for making such a decision and disenfranchising others from your particular SUBJECTIVE OPINION?

Obviously, these are all very controversial topics in our society which are furthered in controversy by the FACT that everyone keeps applying their SUBJECTIVE OPINION of how they feel about these subjects, not what the FACTS are about these topics.

If your derivation for setting a criterion is perhaps your version of a deity, no one would infringe on your freedoms to do so.  However, do you consider that if you are applying your particular deity you are telling everyone else they are wrong?    How do you know you’re not wrong?  Are others not free to decide who their deity is and criterion in life to be determined?  What of those with no deity?

OPINIONS are not FACTS. If an opinion is proven through evidence, then it’s a fact.

Having your feelings, emotions and opinions is inherent within every human being.  Living in America gives rise to the freedom of expression of such; we are lucky we’re here. Infringing on others who hold different opinions about marriage, greed, abortion and any other topic, is anti-American.  

Furthering your personal agenda of imposing those feelings, emotions and opinions rooted in your personal deity or derivations through the courts or legislation is worse than anti-American, it starts to border on Totalitarianism when others are forced to think like you or behave like you.

The FACT is that every human being has personal experience and personal derivations by which they place personal subjective value upon a myriad of topics in our world. 

In a free society with an understanding of free market values – the individual decides the value and then acts within self-interest.

No one person holds authority to tell another how to live his or her life.  

You cannot negate a person’s emotions, feelings or experience because they belong to the individual – it’s personal. You can disagree, but so what?

Living Your Life At No Cost To Others Without Their Consent is the way to advance and move forward in life toward Health = Freedom, for yourself and for others.

If you make your choices in this life where each choice does not cost another human being unless he or she consents (contracts) with you, then how could that behavior ever be anything other than American – freedom, free choice, pursuit of happiness.

I may not agree with your choices, so what?  If your personal subjective choice from your personal subjective derivation does not infringe on my civil liberties, my personal freedom to choose, then why would I care?   If your choices are at no cost to me without my consent where I said, “Yes”, then why would I care?

The simple answer: control

Anytime you are not giving a free choice you are attempting to manipulate and control others. 

I don’t care how you apply the formula – that’s what you are doing.  

Controlling or manipulation is your version of thinking you know how others should live, what choices they should make, the quality of their experiences – none of which was turned over to you as authority to infringe on an individual’s civil liberty.

To alleviate much of these arguments of power regarding subjective vs. objective when it comes to people wanting their personal self-interest upheld, we all need to move toward getting government out of our lives.

The more government dictates morality and value through the courts and legislation, the more bogged down we get to the point of not having the ability to move without offending someone, somewhere, with something by which punitive measures are taken and civil liberties are infringed upon; putting people's civil rights up to a vote by a mob mentality.

Is that what your intention is? It's what you're doing, not what you say you're doing, that counts. 

If you want to know more about this and lots of other controversial topics by which you can release yourself from victimization, check out my book or contact me. 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ICONIC FREEDOM: NO COST TO OTHERS WITHOUT CONSENT

Posted by ICONIC FREEDOM on Saturday, March 07, 2009 4:18:34 PM
Bi-Partisanship? What’s that? A euphemism for mutual contempt for one another?

There is no such thing as compromise, there is only relinquishing your personal values for the self-interest of others simply to victimize yourself when things don’t go your way, “look what I did for you to make it work?”

Republicans are not getting it – they refuse to speak to ALL AMERICANS. 

If you are only talking about issues which are "important to Republicans" then you are disenfranchising the rest of America, splitting the nation and behaving like liberals - "our way or the highway".  You seek nothing more than your own personal agenda to impose on others and not allow more freedom for the individual. 

If the Republicans would “get it” that they need to speak to issues that affect ALL AMERICANS and seek to get government out of everything else that divides the nation because of personal subjective values and morals, they could gain many independents and moderate democrats to their party. 

Fiscal Responsibility. 

A strong defense for our nation.

Government out of everything else, or nearly everything else. 

Stop moralizing and devaluing other people’s values placed in life.  Like a free market system, value placed upon something can only be decided by the individual.  Shared value means nothing more than you "share the idea with someone".   We shared the idea that the earth was flat, so what?  Can't people think and act differently than you?  If their choices are at no cost to you, why do you care?  

Like the recent chatter about "Greed" - who decides?  What's the criteria?  What's the derivation for deciding? 

None of us holds an authority by which to bully others.  In a shameless plug for my book, ICONIC FREEDOM: Living Your Life at No Cost to Others without Their Consent, I speak to these issues where our society keeps indulging in conflict because they think they "know something".

Every time we don’t give choice to people, we are attempting to manipulate and control.

If you have personal subjective derivations for directing your life, congratulations. Why must they be imposed on others?

Republicans, now more than ever, have an opportunity to reshape the party, dismantle the decades of bigotry and discrimination and welcome ALL AMERICANS to the United States where we can all agree that our financial solvency and safety are the greatest issues which, without, pursuit of happiness is “persona non grata”. 

Yes, Republicans have certain issues that are important to them, but do you realize that getting government out of those issues makes those issues go away? Gives more freedom to individual Americans to live their lives as they see fit at no cost to you without your consent? 

You can keep attempting to turn back the clock, but do you realize what you’re saying? 

You’re telling people that you refuse to live in the reality of this century. You refuse to acknowledge the developments over the decades. You refuse to shift with the zeitgeist which has brought us greater freedom, more quality time with family, less effort in day-to-day living. 

Secular Progressives?  Yes, a society that progresses forward without religion as its government.  Are you saying that you negate the rule of law in exchange for the rule of religion imposed on everyone?  Does the First Amendment have meaning to you?

Is Freedom of Religion only as long as it's your religion?

Life only moves forward, not returning to some far off romanticized past. 

You can only be "response-able" when you have taken ownership (accountability) of the choices which led to the situation you are now living. Your personal choices must be at no cost to others without their consent – if I didn’t contract with you, then it’s a “no”.

You can’t know where you’re going if you don’t acknowledge what you are doing. 

Example: You can’t point to liberals using the courts if you’re trying to get Intelligent Design in the classroom through the very same means.

Get government out of ALL of these issues for they do not represent ALL AMERICANS. Are you telling the nation and the world that you only want your narrow agenda upheld and to heck with everyone who doesn’t think like you? That you’re right and all others are wrong? That’s totalitarianism. 

Advance the idea that we are all Americans and that issues which unites us are issues for which you stand, one nation, indivisible – with liberty and justice for all.

Get government out of everything else and we are truly a free nation, indeed.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ICONIC FREEDOM

Posted by ICONIC FREEDOM on Monday, March 02, 2009 12:45:23 PM
Now, more than ever, our freedoms and choices are being hijacked by legislators, politicians and every special interest group imagined who, in their self-interest, are caring nothing about your interests but caring about how to impose and infringe on your freedoms all because "they think they know something" about how the rest of us all should live our lives.

There are no interests that are not self-interests. However, when your choices within this self-interest are at a cost to others, you are infringing on your fellow citizens of this nation and this world.

With Freedom comes Responsibility.

My book speaks to these issues in our nation and the global world in which we live where choices of individuals are at a cost to others without their consent.

ICONIC FREEDOM: Living Your Life At No Cost To Others Without Their Consent outlines what health truly is all about; how subjective vs. objective creates havoc in our society when others start imposing their subjective derivations and decisions upon the rest of us; discusses various subjects of application of this theory while tackling controversial issues that have long needed forthright discussion.

More importantly, my book outlines a step-by-step understanding of how to pull yourself out of victimization that is created and reinforced by society by imposing your choices at a cost to others without consent.

No advancements and developments in our society toward greater freedoms will ensue unless these precepts are assimilated and lived daily by each and every individual in this life: let each care for self and all will be cared for.

Check out the website.
Also, I will continue to blog on this site and welcome your comments; nothing is off limits and no comments will be removed or filtered. 
 
Keep in mind that your free speech reveals every nuance of your nature from within: reveal yourself to the world.
 
If you would like personal coaching on this philosophy, feel free to contact me as my consulting fee is affordable for anyone and done so purposefully so as many as possible can shift their paradigm and start this revolution toward a new evolution of development in your personal life and our society.

Thanks for reading

Cheers!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »