It is not uncommon in American society, and likely in others as well, to hear someone say that he, “does not believe in organized religion.” The statement is usually intended as a conversation stopper, at which it usually succeeds, because it is not clear what is meant by the phrase. It is hard to continue a conversation on that basis.
If it means anything more than, “Leave me alone, and let’s talk about something else,” that is, if it is to be taken as intelligent, meaningful communication, then it probably means one of two things. It may be worthwhile exploring in further conversation which of the two meanings the speaker actually intends.
It could be that the speaker means that he believes instead in disorganized religion. It would be worthwhile asking if this is what he means. That would lead to further questions and discussion. If the speaker in fact does believe in disorganized religion, then it would be fair to ask what he believes in other than in himself. If he believes in the religious views espoused by some other person, that very agreement becomes the first step of organization, the union of belief by more than one person. Every organization is an agreement of two or more people on something, a plan, a program, a belief system. So a true believer in disorganized religion has to have a religion by, for, and of himself, or his religion starts to become organized. I am reminded of the animated Christmas movie, “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer,” in which Rudolph and a misfit elf agree to be “independent together.”
Alternatively, it may be that the speaker means to say that he believes in no religion at all, organized or otherwise. This view is in practice hardly credible. Few people if any have no belief about God and man’s relation to God. That includes those who assert either that God does not exist or that His existence cannot be known. Such a belief is a religious view about God and man, and one that involves reliance on some very fundamental theories that require more than evidence to believe. That is to say, for a thinking man, religious belief of some kind—some set of beliefs about God and one’s relationship to Him, pro or con—is inescapable. The question of the existence of God is fundamental. You either believe that He is or you do not, and that belief leads directly to a long set of follow-on beliefs extending throughout one’s approach to life. Sounds like religion to me. Atheism is a religion, and while atheists may assert that one cannot prove the existence of God (a claim I would firmly dispute) and therefore His existence can only be taken on faith, the atheist in turn fails to prove that God does not exist and can only support his belief in the nonexistence of God with something akin to what he would call faith.
The individual who says that he believes in no religion can seem to be very much like the one who believes in disorganized religion. He has his own religion by, for, and of himself—unless he belongs to some organization of other people holding similar beliefs about the non-existence of God, in which case he does believe in and belong to an organized religion after all.
Of course, the professed disbelief in organized religion could mean—and I suspect that it usually does mean—that the speaker does not prefer to affiliate with a group of people with similar beliefs if they have a formal or obvious system of organization. It is not really organization to which the person objects, but rather to particular forms of organization, to certain methods or formalities of organization.
If this is the case, then the speaker must fit into one situation or another. Either the speaker objects to more obvious organizational structures, because he prefers to be led along with as little perception of it on his part as possible—a kind of religious life with blinders on, involving some unadmitted surrender of freedom and will—or he prefers an organization that makes no demands on him, whether as to belief or conduct.
In the latter condition the person is once again little distinguishable from the believer in disorganized religion, choosing to be a god unto himself, a sole determiner of a religion by, for, and of himself. At this point I must add that how anyone can truly believe in a religion of his own creation is beyond my comprehension.
In some cases at least—and I think that these include the more part of the more honest in heart who claim disbelief in organized religion—those who say that they do not believe in organized religion may mean that they have yet to find an organized religion in which they can believe. This is a very different matter, and it is logically and religiously justifiable, if one does not cease looking before finding the truth.
This was the situation of the young boy, Joseph Smith, and of many others of his contemporaries. They held themselves apart from the various organized religions of their day, religions that claimed to worship a God whose teachings and commandments the religions did not follow and whose authority they did not possess. A fair analysis of the teachings and fruits of these religions could justifiably lead many an honest man to reject them and could cause hope to dim of ever finding the true and living God and His representatives on the earth.
To any such modern truth seekers I together with many others proclaim that God has revealed Himself to man, in modern times as in times of old. We announce that God has again called prophets and apostles authorized and empowered by Him, Jesus Christ, to endow all who will to enjoy the presence and influence of God and His full blessings. This God is a God of order, of peace, with all of His works and efforts organized for the blessing of His children in eternally meaningful activity in this life and in the life to come. This God is knowable, reachable by all who sincerely seek Him.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Of Recovery and Renewed Recession
The economic developments up to this early stage of the new year have reaffirmed the resilience of the American banking industry. After more than a year of recession, bank earnings are rebounding. Non-bank financial firms have dramatically declined or disappeared. Government bailout programs have come and gone in rapid succession doing little better than stimulating panic and sowing confusion among customers and investors—and wasting taxpayer funds. The vast majority of banks have survived all of that.
The early recovery of the banking industry this Spring was publicly interrupted by a set of phony stress tests, subjecting banks to evaluation under hypothetical future conditions that not even the Treasury officials who imposed the tests believed to be realistic. That is, they could not be expected to believe in the hypothetical conditions of the tests, since the conditions assumed that the Obama economic program not only would not work but would actually make things worse. For example, the hypothetical stress tests asked banks how they would do if loan losses became worse than at the deepest point in the Great Depression. We all must believe that the Treasury has better hopes than that for its own economic programs.
Even against those unrealistic measures the banking industry came off well. Despite the fear mongering of short sellers, the obtuseness of accounting standard setters, and the vivisection experiments of policymakers, the bank panic is over and the industry is poised for economic recovery.
The sky ahead, however, is not blue and cloudless. There are three major dangers on the horizon that could play havoc with the economy, the banking industry not excepted. The good news is, that all three are subject to government action. The bad news is that government leaders are showing little sign of even recognizing the dangers, let alone taking action to avoid them.
The three dangers are ballooning inflation, rising interest rates, and increased taxes. The three are related. Any one on its own could stifle recovery.
The Federal Reserve has pumped more than a trillion dollars into the economy, increasing the money supply dramatically. With fewer goods and services to buy with all that extra money we would be in a major inflation now if most people and businesses were not instead hoarding the money. Once coffers and savings accounts get full and people and businesses start spending again inflation can be avoided only if the Federal Reserve can mop up all that extra money and do so precisely as it comes gushing out into the economy. Success with such a delicate maneuver may not be impossible, but it would be astonishing.
The chief baggage from Federal Reserve efforts to reduce excess money supply is higher interest rates. High interest rates are both a tool for encouraging people to save their money rather than spend it, as well as a reflection that the program is succeeding in pulling money out of the system. But high interest rates also depress the economy, making business investment (think new machines and buildings) and consumer purchases (including houses and cars) more expensive.
Complicating this nearly impossible task for the Federal Reserve is the problem that the trillion dollar overspending by the Federal Government—well on its way to more than two trillion dollars—will be demanding hundreds of billions of dollars in borrowing from the public just when the Federal Reserve may be wanting to reduce the money supply. Foreigners are showing reluctance to lend to the Treasury, so domestic savers will have to choose more and more among spending their money, lending it to business, or lending it to the Federal Government.
Treasury debt auctions have already been soft. Interest rates are creeping up to keep Treasury debt attractive. The Federal Reserve may soon be stepping in to buy Treasury debt to keep the auctions from collapsing. If the Federal Reserve did so, it would be pushing more dollars into the economy just when it needed to pull them back to hold off inflation. The Federal Reserve would be in a no-win situation, and so would the rest of the country.
We could overcome both inflationary and interest rate risks to the economy by dramatically reducing taxes, particularly taxes on capital gains—making investment and new business activity more attractive by letting people keep more of what they earn. Instead, the Obama administration is proposing a host of major new taxes. Some are hidden as part of new environmental and health care programs. Others are more overt, such as plans to raise taxes on businesses and the wealthy, the very sources of job creation and investment.
The Franklin Roosevelt administration well earned the condemnation of history by taking a deep economic recession and making it last for a decade—encouraging enemies of freedom all around the world. President Obama would do well to avoid that example.
The early recovery of the banking industry this Spring was publicly interrupted by a set of phony stress tests, subjecting banks to evaluation under hypothetical future conditions that not even the Treasury officials who imposed the tests believed to be realistic. That is, they could not be expected to believe in the hypothetical conditions of the tests, since the conditions assumed that the Obama economic program not only would not work but would actually make things worse. For example, the hypothetical stress tests asked banks how they would do if loan losses became worse than at the deepest point in the Great Depression. We all must believe that the Treasury has better hopes than that for its own economic programs.
Even against those unrealistic measures the banking industry came off well. Despite the fear mongering of short sellers, the obtuseness of accounting standard setters, and the vivisection experiments of policymakers, the bank panic is over and the industry is poised for economic recovery.
The sky ahead, however, is not blue and cloudless. There are three major dangers on the horizon that could play havoc with the economy, the banking industry not excepted. The good news is, that all three are subject to government action. The bad news is that government leaders are showing little sign of even recognizing the dangers, let alone taking action to avoid them.
The three dangers are ballooning inflation, rising interest rates, and increased taxes. The three are related. Any one on its own could stifle recovery.
The Federal Reserve has pumped more than a trillion dollars into the economy, increasing the money supply dramatically. With fewer goods and services to buy with all that extra money we would be in a major inflation now if most people and businesses were not instead hoarding the money. Once coffers and savings accounts get full and people and businesses start spending again inflation can be avoided only if the Federal Reserve can mop up all that extra money and do so precisely as it comes gushing out into the economy. Success with such a delicate maneuver may not be impossible, but it would be astonishing.
The chief baggage from Federal Reserve efforts to reduce excess money supply is higher interest rates. High interest rates are both a tool for encouraging people to save their money rather than spend it, as well as a reflection that the program is succeeding in pulling money out of the system. But high interest rates also depress the economy, making business investment (think new machines and buildings) and consumer purchases (including houses and cars) more expensive.
Complicating this nearly impossible task for the Federal Reserve is the problem that the trillion dollar overspending by the Federal Government—well on its way to more than two trillion dollars—will be demanding hundreds of billions of dollars in borrowing from the public just when the Federal Reserve may be wanting to reduce the money supply. Foreigners are showing reluctance to lend to the Treasury, so domestic savers will have to choose more and more among spending their money, lending it to business, or lending it to the Federal Government.
Treasury debt auctions have already been soft. Interest rates are creeping up to keep Treasury debt attractive. The Federal Reserve may soon be stepping in to buy Treasury debt to keep the auctions from collapsing. If the Federal Reserve did so, it would be pushing more dollars into the economy just when it needed to pull them back to hold off inflation. The Federal Reserve would be in a no-win situation, and so would the rest of the country.
We could overcome both inflationary and interest rate risks to the economy by dramatically reducing taxes, particularly taxes on capital gains—making investment and new business activity more attractive by letting people keep more of what they earn. Instead, the Obama administration is proposing a host of major new taxes. Some are hidden as part of new environmental and health care programs. Others are more overt, such as plans to raise taxes on businesses and the wealthy, the very sources of job creation and investment.
The Franklin Roosevelt administration well earned the condemnation of history by taking a deep economic recession and making it last for a decade—encouraging enemies of freedom all around the world. President Obama would do well to avoid that example.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)