WORDS HAVE MEANING

Excerpts from "WORDS HAVE MEANING: LOVE, AND FREEDOM"

By Marilyn M. Barnewall
January 8, 2012
NewsWithViews.com


The cost of something for nothing is human dignity

Conservatives think loving their neighbor – being their brother’s keeper – means teaching the poor and downtrodden to fish.

Liberals believe love means giving the poor and downtrodden a fish.

Which definition of love is right? To judge truthfully, one must look at the long-term results of each act… teaching and giving.

When we teach someone to fish – when we train a person to work and be productive – it has a long-term effect on the recipient’s life. Properly taught and considerately planned, it provides life purpose and a career and of being able to support a family and send kids to college.

When we give someone a fish day after day, what do we do? We teach people to be dependent on something outside of them – and that stifles their creative energy. We motivate laziness. Even worse, we motivate the recipient to lose the important drive to get out of bed each morning with the zest required to find meaning and purpose (of which happiness is made) in the day ahead.

The giving of the free fish makes givers feel good about themselves - but is that how we define love of neighbor? No. It isn't. No mature, sane person defines love in this way. The giver of the fish probably won't admit it, but providing the fish is an exercise in power… and love isn't an exercise in one ego dominating another ego.


What about the word "charity?"

To be charitable is to be kind. I would repeat the meaning of love and merely ask: Is it kinder to give your neighbor or your brother a fish? Or is it kinder to teach him to fish? Which has the best long-term impact on the person's life? Which offers the best potential for growth?


How do you define "freedom?"

It seems to me that "freedom" has its root in the right to own personal property - which includes owning one's own body… the avoidance of slavery If you are free to own property, you must have the accompanying right to define its use. If you cannot use property as you wish, do you really own it?


NDAA

In late December, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It decimates the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

A majority of Republicans voted for the NDAA (which validates my concern that Democrats want to get us to one world government via socialism, Republicans via fascism). The official Russian international radio broadcasting service. Voice of Russia, compared the Act to legislation passed by the Third Reich.

If you're unfamiliar with this legislation, don't be. The NDAA gives the President authority to detain, via our armed forces any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners," or anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]." The text also authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin," or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity." An amendment to the Act that would have explicitly forbidden the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens was rejected by the Senate. (NOTE: AUMF means Authorization for Use of Military Force.)

It is interesting to note that "terrorism" has not by law been defined. NDAA, then, allows the President to define who a terrorist is and to have the military arrest him/her and "disappear" them to a foreign country. It wasn't too long ago that law enforcement in more than one state defined a potential terrorist as someone who had bumper stickers that were pro-Constitution.

That's why it's important to define our words more carefully and know what words like "freedom" mean.


Full article:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Barnewall/marilyn177.htm