It's no secret to anyone who knows me that I have no faith.
It is important to note that "faith" does not necessarily have to be religious in context. "Faith" is, essentially, blind belief in something without evidence to support the belief (or, in some cases, belief against the evidence that supports an oppositional viewpoint).
EVERYTHING I accept as reality is based on evidence leading up to it or based on the idea of giving someone/something the "benefit of the doubt" until they generate enough evidence to confirm or deny that they deserve that benefit.
This is not just applicable to people. It's also applicable to vendors and other organizations. It's applied to concepts and philosophies.
This is why I have troubles with organized religion. They are ALL based on faith of some sort.
Of course, I realized a few years ago that my disdain for certain religions was/is based on assumptions of those religions and on the faith that what I have absorbed through living in the life I live in hasn't been warped or distorted.
In an effort to eliminate this error on my part I have decided to absorb the contents of the core books of several religions.
I am starting with the Old Testament of The Bible (this books is common to both the Jews and Christians) and then I will work into the New Testament of The Bible (Christians) and then I will absorb the Book of Mormon (applicable only to a sub-sect of the Christian faith). After that I will move on to the Holy Quran. If I can find audio versions of many other religious books (including the "banned" books of the bible and alternate books used by alternate variations of the Christian faith I will absorb them, too.
I will post commentary as posts as I am absorbing some of these materials.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Monday, April 25, 2011
Holidays
It's been awhile. I've been busy. Real life (mostly work) got in the way of me doing writing.
Yesterday was Easter. As just about everyone knows Easter is a religious holiday.
One of the things about religious holidays is that not everyone celebrates them another is that they are religious.
Yesterday I tried to do some errands and I was thwarted by signs posted to the local Wal*Mart store's front doors. The signs stated that the store was closed in compliance with a state law. This REALLY bothers me because this country is SUPPOSED to have a separation of church and state. That means that there should be NO incidents of law FORCING a store to close for a religious holiday (yes I feel the same way about Christmas). Holidays, such as Thanksgiving and the 4th of July, which allegedly commemorate a historical event directly tied to the origins of the country are one thing (although I don't thing that there should be laws telling businesses they CAN'T be open on those days, either) but those holidays do have direct and non-religious impact to the country itself.
I know many Christians take Christmas and Easter as historically factual, but that is a part of their faith and even if they are both historically factual they are not directly related to this country (indirectly, of course).
I mentioned this in a tweet yesterday as I was thoroughly annoyed that my errands were ALL thwarted by businesses being closed and one of them was closed because of legal obligations. I was surprised to find that someone took offense to my annoyance. Someone took offense to my opinion that the law shouldn't be involved with this issue.
Our country was founded on an ideal of no religious persecution and having ANY law that supports or enforces ANY religion is a failure in that concept. That is my major offense to Easter: the idea that the law is NOT separated from the church when it is allegedly separate in this country.
Yesterday was Easter. As just about everyone knows Easter is a religious holiday.
One of the things about religious holidays is that not everyone celebrates them another is that they are religious.
Yesterday I tried to do some errands and I was thwarted by signs posted to the local Wal*Mart store's front doors. The signs stated that the store was closed in compliance with a state law. This REALLY bothers me because this country is SUPPOSED to have a separation of church and state. That means that there should be NO incidents of law FORCING a store to close for a religious holiday (yes I feel the same way about Christmas). Holidays, such as Thanksgiving and the 4th of July, which allegedly commemorate a historical event directly tied to the origins of the country are one thing (although I don't thing that there should be laws telling businesses they CAN'T be open on those days, either) but those holidays do have direct and non-religious impact to the country itself.
I know many Christians take Christmas and Easter as historically factual, but that is a part of their faith and even if they are both historically factual they are not directly related to this country (indirectly, of course).
I mentioned this in a tweet yesterday as I was thoroughly annoyed that my errands were ALL thwarted by businesses being closed and one of them was closed because of legal obligations. I was surprised to find that someone took offense to my annoyance. Someone took offense to my opinion that the law shouldn't be involved with this issue.
Our country was founded on an ideal of no religious persecution and having ANY law that supports or enforces ANY religion is a failure in that concept. That is my major offense to Easter: the idea that the law is NOT separated from the church when it is allegedly separate in this country.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
How It's Always Been Done
One thing that fascinates me is that there are a great many things that exist the way they do simply because that's "how it has always been done."
One of these things is car insurance.
Car insurance really consists of two different types of insurance: property insurance against damage and liability insurance against one's own ineptitude.
The way we handle car insurance, however, is based solely on the idea that we are insuring property. We list all of our vehicles and all of our drivers and we purchase the insurance on the vehicles.
This is not the best way to do this.
I am wondering why car insurance companies (or one, to start with) doesn't "step up to the plate" and redefine the way we do car insurance in a way that makes sense.
The first part of the car insurance would be simple: insuring cars.
You list the vehicle and the level of property insurance you want for it to protect the asset itself. This portion of the car insurance won't be strange or different from anything we are familiar with now. This portion of the insurance protects my asset from theft and other damage.
The other portion of the insurance is where the radical change is needed. This portion deals with the liability. When I drive a car I am in control of a VERY dangerous piece of equipment. I am taking the lives and property of everyone else on (and near) the roads on which I am driving into MY hands. If I make an error then it is my fault and, therefore, my liability for the damages caused. This liability is the case regardless of whose vehicle I am driving or what roads I am driving on. This liability exists regardless of whether the car I am driving is 10 years old or whether I just drove it off the lot of the dealership. This liability exists for me regardless of whom else I may reside with that is a licensed driver.
The obvious solution to this is to do away with the "proof of insurance" card that exists in every car's "glove" box. Those pieces of paper are worthless. They prove only that the owner of the car has paid the minimum level of insurance for them to drive that car. The obvious replacement should be an insurance endorsement that goes along with (or is part of; or, at least, tied to) your license. EVERY licenses driver should have to have the liability insurance as part of being a licensed driver. This reduces the burden of car ownership on the owners and places the burden of insuring one's own behavior exactly where it needs to be: on the individual.
Just a thought. I welcome explanations on why this is not the way it is as well as reasons why it cannot work.
One of these things is car insurance.
Car insurance really consists of two different types of insurance: property insurance against damage and liability insurance against one's own ineptitude.
The way we handle car insurance, however, is based solely on the idea that we are insuring property. We list all of our vehicles and all of our drivers and we purchase the insurance on the vehicles.
This is not the best way to do this.
I am wondering why car insurance companies (or one, to start with) doesn't "step up to the plate" and redefine the way we do car insurance in a way that makes sense.
The first part of the car insurance would be simple: insuring cars.
You list the vehicle and the level of property insurance you want for it to protect the asset itself. This portion of the car insurance won't be strange or different from anything we are familiar with now. This portion of the insurance protects my asset from theft and other damage.
The other portion of the insurance is where the radical change is needed. This portion deals with the liability. When I drive a car I am in control of a VERY dangerous piece of equipment. I am taking the lives and property of everyone else on (and near) the roads on which I am driving into MY hands. If I make an error then it is my fault and, therefore, my liability for the damages caused. This liability is the case regardless of whose vehicle I am driving or what roads I am driving on. This liability exists regardless of whether the car I am driving is 10 years old or whether I just drove it off the lot of the dealership. This liability exists for me regardless of whom else I may reside with that is a licensed driver.
The obvious solution to this is to do away with the "proof of insurance" card that exists in every car's "glove" box. Those pieces of paper are worthless. They prove only that the owner of the car has paid the minimum level of insurance for them to drive that car. The obvious replacement should be an insurance endorsement that goes along with (or is part of; or, at least, tied to) your license. EVERY licenses driver should have to have the liability insurance as part of being a licensed driver. This reduces the burden of car ownership on the owners and places the burden of insuring one's own behavior exactly where it needs to be: on the individual.
Just a thought. I welcome explanations on why this is not the way it is as well as reasons why it cannot work.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)