Consumerist Bliss - Sure...

What’s ironic to me is that, when we buy products and hire services, we are tacitly or even explicitly promised we’ll have a “hassle free” experience. We are indeed charged extra for convenience and for quality. However, the delivery is another matter. We receive products with flaws purposefully designed in for “planned obsolescence”, and services that are designed so that customers serve service-providers instead of the other way around. This is the promise of consumerism. This is the bliss of modern times. Enjoy it, if you can.

A Worldly Church is a Weak Church

Understand this: The Catholic Church is universal by name and definition, and all are welcome to it. However, this does not translate into chaos and lawlessness, and by being welcome, it does not mean that the Church agrees that you should do whatever you like and live howsoever you desire. There are definitly rules to follow. There are definitely objectives to which we should aspire. You can live per your own leave, of course, and the Church will not bar you from it, but then why do you seek the Church? And if you don't seek it, why mind about what those who do choose to do of it? In the Church, we are taught not to hate the sinner, but the sin. Still, while the Church hates no-one, it cannot, in good conscience and in all fairness to its purpose, accept certain behaviours even if others do. The Church cannot bend to fashion. It cannot bend to the times. It cannot bend to society’s appetites. For a Church of Christ is a beacon of God’s values; not man’s.

On "Happiness by Money" Chart Posted by The Economist

Bollocks! I’m with The Beatles: “Money can’t buy me Love”. If you take into account that our society, by adopting consumerism as the norm, has been preaching for more than 50 years that consumption of goods is what makes everyone happy, and that perennial efforts in advertising and marketing exist to foment this concept via a constant bombardment in all media, then you can easily see that earlier studies, made with samples from a generation less indoctrinated into the ethics of consumerism, are likelier to be more imaginative about the concept of happiness. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/05/daily-chart-0?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/dc/moneybuyhappiness

NO! To Relativism.

What is right, meaning what is natural and correct and good and true and civil and favourable to harmony, is STILL right even if no one does it. What is wrong, to be understood as incorrect, and bad and false and conducive to disharmony, is STILL wrong even when everyone does it. If you feel you need to rely on “your truth” and I in mine, it’s probably not because you respect mine, but because you don’t care about it. This is apathy, not love, nor democracy. Nor is a mutual “non-interference” pact true democracy because, in a society, it is hardly possible not to interfere in one another’s affairs, most of all when non-interference actually incurs favouring one side over another via new legislation. There exists no gain to democracy in our not discussing our issues and resolving them. True democracy is founded in open discussion to find common grounds, or failing that, a settlement. It is certainly not rooted in an imposition of the few over the majority just as it is not found in a tyranny of the majority. It is certainly not rooted in apathy and alienation, but in seeking knowledge of one another to achieve understanding and empathy. Relativism is then not a tool of democracy, but a tool for totalitarianism; for in Relativism there is only division.

Gay Marriage Once Again

On the question of State sanction for same-sex marriages: On one side, there are those defending homosexual unions should enjoy the same legal status of a heterosexual union for the sake of equality. On another, there are religious groups concerned about the legal repercussions of this parity as regards the ceremonies and sacraments they cherish according to traditional values that oppose gay marriage. Thirdly, there are groups merely interested in preserving the more long-established sociological, anthropological and legal meaning of marriage for the sake of maintaining social relationships intact and the basis of our societies the family unit a solid institution. This is the proverbial omelette requiring eggs to be broken, so I ask myself if this should not be a case where the State remains neutral? After all, what has the State to do with how a man and a woman, or two men or two women decide to pursue their personal relationships? What stake has the State in how two people go about their romantic pursuits? Why would the State see fit to dispute what a religion or a social science has held as the definition of marriage for ages? Aren't these all questions of conscience and free-will? If equal rights were truly the only issue at the heart of the matter, a proposal would have surfaced by now that gives state-sponsored unions an altogether different name than marriage, and this new name could eventually apply to both gay and straight couples, ensuring equivalent rights to either that would not impose upon religious and anthropologic understanding of marriage or the basic unit of Society, as understood by Sociology and Anthropology, which is a conventional family. Yet no such proposal has been put forth, and we are forced to wonder why. If the blessing of religions is overtly unimportant to same-sex couples and if it won't indeed be attainable, why should the State mediate in favour of promoting an affront to religious citizens? Where is the benefit? What’s more, what rights are these that the State claims it has to ensure that could not be ensured otherwise, in a public notary, universally and without incurring the controversy that has been built around the issue? And if a large portion of Society opposes the change in meaning, how can it be imposed on them with any degree of legitimacy? Should the State really be the herald of this violation? Should not the Sate offer an alternative that would appease all of the sides involved instead of dividing Society and polarising it? Should the Sate not do everything in its power to promote social harmony instead of division and controversy? Here’s a question deserving of pause. Semantics notwithstanding and rhetoric being honest, anyone can agree that a traditional understanding of a family is indeed a social unit composed of a man and a woman and their progeny. The licentiousness with which the word family has been applied to other arrangements does not in fact change the original meaning, but instead propose a new one to replace it. This is the "freedom fries" of Anthropology and Sociology. Likewise, misapplying the word marriage so that it would incur an understanding embracing any romantic arrangement of any kind does not change its original meaning as much as it would defile that meaning to generate confusion. Shall a paedophile that joins a minor be regarded as "married" and constituting a "family"? Of course not. At least for now, this would be regarded as unacceptable. In the legal sense, and imagining that the rule of precedence would have any bearing, has not the word "marriage" been in use by Religion and Society long before than by the State? Has it not meant the union of a man and a woman long before it was used to mean the union between two men or two women? Why then would anyone mean to change it for the sake of the convenience of the State in promoting equal rights? Could not the Sate, without much controversy, decide to call a state sanction of a romantic union a "joining in affection", and then, having made the thing its own, apply it to whatever condition it sees fit without interfering, or causing further distaste, to any who oppose the use of the word "marriage" for unions other than heterosexual ones? It would then be the case that a person would get "married" in a church, mosque or synagogue, by a cleric, according to religious doctrine and "joined" by a judge of peace, naval captain or notary, according to the legal parameters of the State. This would further the concept of separation of the State and Religion, which is something professed to be desirable by a fair portion of the world. Let conservative minds and consciences have the word "marriage" for themselves and let liberal, legal and relativist minds have another that they can call their own and use as they see fit.

To feel alone in the modern world is to think that ownership of an increasing mountain of trinkets does not afford one greater contentment. It is to think that owning less can actually contribute to greater contentment and freedom to live more.

To feel alone in the modern world is to be one of a few who gave corporate ascension because he thought that his newborn kids needed him present. To be among the few who believe a child should be tended principally by their parents. To be among the few who do not think it socially demeaning to put family before career, and to believe that there is a time for everything, including caring for your progeny when they need you most.