Is Religion Required to Declare Something a Sin?

If you are a religious zealot, this post is not for you. However, if you are a thinker, a philosophy aficionado, or a non-religious person, dive into this thought.

Does declaring something a sin require a religious premise?

In other words, if I were non-religious, could I acknowledge something as sin?

I could most certainly acknowledge something as wrong. I could acknowledge something as immoral. Sin is not necessarily a synonym for either wrong or immoral, despite what Webster's thinks.

Morality can exist without religion or Faith.

Sin carries with it a religious connotation. Let me illustrate how easy the religious implication comes about.

If I were to ask you if homosexuality were a sin, you would be inclined to say No. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Ask a religious person the same question.

If you were to ask me if murder were a sin, what would be your response?

I'm leaving this open ended. As a non-religious man, I don't think I could accept either question as valid. If rephrased as whether homosexuality or murder were wrong, then I could answer. Are either sins? That, I cannot entertain as I am not a religious person. Sin does not exist in my world. It might as well not be a word. Do you see what I'm getting at?

The Problem With Leaders: OWS

The Occupy Wall Street movement has acquired a significant amount of attention over the past few weeks, but the most common criticism, perhaps improperly applied, has been that the movement lacks a cohesiveness. There are no prominent leaders or big names which come to mind when you think of OWS. The question then, is, should OWS have a leader or leaders?

At first glance, the obvious answer would be Yes. Creating a figurehead to lead the movement would silence the critics who have demanded clarity in the OWS movement. It would be an easy fix.

Or would it?

You see, just like any other movement which originates on the Left, no amount of positioning, messaging, or symbolism will appease the critics, especially those on the Right. Asking for leaders to rise up out of OWS is simply one more straw man argument in a long line of straw men. No matter what OWS does, the media critics and the Right Wing Machine will stop at nothing to delegitimize OWS. At least those of us on the Left gave credence to the Tea Party, even if we did criticize them. We accepted their complaint that the federal government was broken. We accepted that government spending was out of control. We just didn't agree on the solutions.

OWS has not been provided the same courtesy, nor will it.

Established leaders in the OWS movement will become nothing more than lightning rods, people faced with an onslaught of insults and dismissal, the likes of which have been illustrated in Right Wing responses to Elizabeth Warren, Rachel Maddow, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and yes, Barack Obama. Mention unions to a right winger and watch how fast they choose to ramble on and on about how evil they are. OWS will evoke the same response. The lazy/welfare/hippie stigma is applied to anything on the Left as a way to invigorate the Right Wing base. It's almost as common as their idea that tax cuts will fix everything. Conservatives only know how to think in those two terms. They won't deviate from the flock. It is better to keep OWS decentralized and broad based than to put someone in charge. As long as OWS remains broad, it will be symbolic of the American people, not "liberal" as used in the derogatory sense.

After all, the Right Wing pundits have to feed their dogs frothing at the mouth somehow, right?

After Labor Day

President Obama has recently been criticized for saying he has a plan to create jobs, but that he will reveal it after Labor Day. People want to hear the plan right now. People are asking why he has to wait until after Labor Day to reveal this plan.

Let me tell you why, peons.

Congress comes back from their little vacation after Labor Day. They're on break. Obama isn't. His trip is not a vacation. It's in his job description.

Judging by the words and phrases in his speech, I'd say that his plan has to do with infrastructure and construction jobs, in addition to payroll tax cuts. Anyone who has actually listened to him speak over the past few days should have that understanding, too. If you're not a listener, there's a good chance you are still asking what the plan is. If you're not paying attention, you might miss all the Republicans saying No to these proposals.

But it doesn't stop there. What is the point in announcing the plan now? Congress has to approve it. That's how our government works. If you don't understand that, go back to grade school. The House and Senate need to fine tune whatever proposal President Obama has regarding jobs. Obama doesn't make the modifications to a plan and send it out to the masses. Our government relies on Congress to do all of that. Then it goes out to the masses.

If President Obama tells you exactly what his plan is, what are the odds Congress will change it before all is said and done? I'd say, given the way the Republicans handled the HCR debate, the chances are pretty good Obama's jobs plan will not look exactly how he envisioned it. In other words, telling you the specifics now is useless. The details will change. I mean, Republicans are already saying No. Do they stand up in front of us and say they have a plan? No.

Maybe John Boehner should drop his plan in the mail. Let me know when it arrives on your doorstep, fellow citizen.

I'm just calling it like I see it, folks. That's how our government works. If you want to yell and complain, aim those screams at Congress. They're on vacation right now. If you want something done before Labor Day, Congress has to get its ass in gear. Tell President Obama you want members of Congress back on the job right now.