Saturday, April 2, 2016

Politicians and Lying

As there is a difference between criminal and moral laws, so we know there is a difference among liars. 

When you brought your kids to the movie theater last week, you told the manager that your 13 year old daughter was 12. 

You lied. 

Should you be classified as a liar, of whom no trust can be given?

Is there a difference between the personal, relationship lie, and bribes?

What about just returning an item on day 31 of a 30 day return policy?

We consider such things as 'white lies', 'personal lies', and panic lies, and how honest people react to lying:

Do they hurt over them?

Do they seek to make amends?

Then, there is the fabricator of reality...

and the habitual liar; the narcissistic type, who puts himself or herself before others.  

You, alone, must decide what classification to put a liar into.  As the political season is in full steam, is there a difference between an affair, and a serial cheater?

Is there a difference between a predator and a weakling?    

For one, the lie is embraced, enjoyed as successful, and a stepping stone;

for another, it is a hurt to confront, amend, and learn from.

For one, it is not really noticed, while for another, it stops them dead in their paths, and makes them reconsider life. 

Everyone lies, but not everyone is a habitual liar who will bring harm and destruction. 

When you listen to the politicians, listen carefully, with discernment.  

When they attack each other:

do they attack policy?

do they attack personally?

is the personal attack one of character, or is it an attempt to exploit error and human frailty?

Does one reveal a serial fabricator of reality who's narrative trumps truth?

Does one seem to make the same mistakes of all men, but has humility to learn from mistakes?

Does one seem immovable, while another seems to have no solid position on anything, waiting for the next opinion poll to dictate character?

For many of us, America has been going on a steadfast downhill path in the last several elections and recognizing our country is a challenge. 

The lack of civility is as remarkable today, as the lack of truth has been in the last 7 years. 

Even people considered professional seem to become emotional, and unhinged, vulgar, and will project their own thinking on to others, without considering one may disagree. 

Name calling, labeling, slogans, and bumper-stickers appeal to the lazy minded.  It is easy to recite 'if it don't fit, you must acquit' than it is to carefully weigh all the evidence. 

In the very least, readers of Statement Analysis come here with 'pause' in mind. 

It takes time and consideration to analyze anything and quick fix bumper-stickers, even when echoing a principle, may not fit well with truth seeking.  

Proceed with discernment.  


26 comments:

Kit Perez said...

I look at the purpose of the lie. What did it gain? Why was it done? I ask why as many times as I can to get to a core motive. The answer to whether someone should be deemed a habitual, untrustworthy liar seems to be found in what the core motive was.

More disturbing than the politicians lying, are the followers who will ignore anything negative about their chosen candidate. The amount of cognitive dissonance is staggering. They will rationalize any deed, see denials of wrongdoing where there are none, and even jump on the bandwagon of projection when the candidate chooses to divert attention to someone else in a negative way to get the spotlight off himself.

The problem with elected officials, especially President, is that it DOES matter who he sleeps with or who he associates with. If someone running for President slept with someone other than his wife, I want to know that because for me, it means he has a basic lack of integrity. If he lies about it as well, then he does not take responsibility for his actions. Those two traits are not desirable for a leader of anything, let alone a President.

Critical thinking and seeking the truth, wherever it leads, are traits that we as citizens MUST hold as sacred. We have to be willing to not only ask the question, but accept that the truth may shift our paradigm.

Katprint said...

My 13 year old son is about 6' 1", about 1" taller than my 6' tall husband. When we go to a movie theater, I pay for my son as a teen/student and I always bring his school ID (he's in 7th grade in middle school right now) to prove his age. LOL! Yesterday, I went grocery shopping and forgot to put my enormous Tide bulk detergent dispenser from the bottom rung on my shopping cart onto the conveyor belt; when I got to my car, I realized I had forgotten to pay so I went back into the store and paid for it. Attorneys have a tongue-in-cheek saying that it is only worth stealing if it is worth two years' salary. I personally never steal because 1) I don't want to have to explain to God on Judgment Day why I stole (for example laundry detergent) instead of paying for it, and 2) I plan to work as an attorney for way more than 2 years, and 3) as a criminal defense attorney, I never encounter large sums of money that belong to other people so as a factual matter I am not tempted.

Nic said...

and the habitual liar; the narcissistic type, who puts himself or herself before others. … a serial fabricator of reality who's narrative trumps truth….

That about sums up my father-in-law in a nutshell. Everything about his life is a lie. Everything. From his marriage, to his nearly 40 year affair in which he misrepresents his mistress as his wife (I’ve taken calls here for “John and his wife XXXX”), to his relationship with my children, which is the lie I will address.

My father-in-law sees my husband nearly every day at work. Every day at lunch they talk about this and that. Conversations eventually turn to how the kids are, how school is going, what they're up to, etc. The on-going issue has been that he doesn’t see my kids! There is always the excuse, "I have to talk to XXXX first". And then the response, “Oh we have, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.” In other words, some other time.

So essentially if anyone ever asks him how his grandchildren are, he can rhyme off all sorts of intimate (third party) information like he’s actually involved in their lives; however, the kids have zero interaction with their grandfather. They couldn’t say one way or the other how he is, what he’s doing, they haven’t even seen a single picture of any of the (European) trips they’ve taken in the past four years. No information is forthcoming from them. We were even kept from seeing the $100k+ reno they made on her house until I publicly embarrassed him. (“The only people who haven’t seen your reno, John, is your family and (s-i-l and b-i-l) live in the US.”) That incident was made into an excuse why they “couldn’t” be around us. (Lie for, keep "her" (me) away because I will not suffer in silence.)

The man is a liar through and through. In the past my husband has said, “That’s all his sh!t.” But it isn’t. He sees, now, (because of my harping,) how the lies have impacted everyone around them. We’ve had many conversations with the kids about the kind of lie my father-in-law perpetuates, and about monogamy, extra marital affairs and one’s conduct in general. The bottom line is that my husband doesn’t share much of anything with him anymore and suggests that he should drop in to see the kids when he asks about them, (he literally drives by the house to and from work,) or drop in and take the kids out for ice-cream at lunchtime (in the summertime). It hasn’t happened and I don’t expect it ever will because first of all, neither party know each other/has much to say to each other. Secondly he is a coward. It would be my face he sees first when he knocks on the door and he knows I don't buy into his b.s.

Hey Jude said...

'When you brought your kids to the movie theater last week, you told the manager that your 13 year old daughter was 12.

You lied.

Should you be classified as a liar, of whom no trust can be given?'

Not necessarily, but such a parent could do a lot better. I would not let you take my daughter to the movies with your daughter if I knew you were going to do that. You are teaching your daughter dishonesty, to lie, cheat and steal; you would be a parent who was willing to involve your impressionable daughter in your dishonesty, and to set her a bad example, in order to save a little money. You would be disrespecting your daughter in either imposing upon, or assuming she wishes to share in your dishonesty. You would likely lose some of her respect. You would not be considering her enjoyment of the movie would be spoiled if she had been involved in lying in order to see it - that's if her conscience had not already been blunted to the point where it seemed not to matter, as her parents had taught her, wittingly or less so, that their conduct was acceptable, clever, and routine. What price a child's conscience? - if you can't afford for everyone to see the movie, don't go.

'Is there a difference between the personal, relationship lie, and bribes?'

I don't understand the question - what would be an example?

'What about just returning an item on day 31 of a 30 day return policy?'

That would be okay if you just forgot about it - your loss if you have to pay a charge for keeping a rental item out too long. If a mail order purchase, do you mean day thirty of a thirty-one day return policy? If so, why did it take so long to decide you didn't want it? Still, you would be within your rights to do that, and maybe you forgot about it. Like finding and using the day before it expires, a gift voucher you had forgotten about, but in reverse.

--

Donald Trump - I am incredulous that he and his campaign are for real. There is a meme which has appeared a few times in my Facebook stream: 'It's not funny anymore - where are the real presidential candidates?' I am not much up on US politics - is he really a serious contender yet? We like to joke about this nightmare scenario in which the Donald is US President and the Boris is UK Prime Minister, except it isn't funny - 'Stop the world - I want to get off.'

Donald said he had never asked God's forgiveness for anything, and that he didn't need to - he doesn't do anything wrong - that's is a tad worrying from someone who professes to be a Christian.

Nic said...

Top German Journalist Admits Mainstream Media Is Completely Fake: "We All Lie For The CIA"


I’ve been a journalist for about 25 years, and I was educated to lie, to betray, and not to tell the truth to the public.

But seeing right now within the last months how the German and American media tries to bring war to the people in Europe, to bring war to Russia — this is a point of no return and I’m going to stand up and say it is not right what I have done in the past, to manipulate people, to make propaganda against Russia, and it is not right what my colleagues do and have done in the past because they are bribed to betray the people, not only in Germany, all over Europe.


You can read the article and watch the rest of the video from where the above-quote comes from here: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-28/top-german-journalist-admits-mainstream-media-completely-fake-we-all-lie-cia


I found the "Astroturf and manipulation of media messages" video very interesting/worth the time to watch.

Rose said...

Hey Jude, I do not think Trump ever actually professed to be a Christian. Granted, I have not heard everything he has said, but as an avid reader of this blog, I listened carefully to his words on this topic on several occasions. He said, "I support Christianity" or "this is a Christian nation".

Unlike Ted Cruz, who cannot bring himself to deny the affairs he is accused of, Trump has not run on a platform of being a Christian.

Shannon Duane said...

I noticed that, too. So far neither Ted Cruz, nor Amanda carpenter, have issued reliable denials. It's been interesting.

Rose said...

Nope. Neither Cruz nor any of his mistresses have issued a reliable denial. Amanda Carpenter came close, but it was a week after this broke and it was an answer to a direct question about whether the affair happened. And even then she said, "I have never cheated on my husband". This is a married woman who posted a photo of herself in a hotel room with condoms on the bed next to her. She does not deny they were condoms, she just says they were photoshopped (they weren't) and she also does not say that she was at that hotel with her husband (because she wasn't). She is very obviously having sex with someone who is NOT her husband.

Hey Jude said...

Rose - I'd say Donald Trump is happy to create the impression:

Trump on the importance of religion to him

'It’s very important. I am a Protestant. I am a Presbyterian within the Protestant group and I go to Church as much as I can. And I am a believer. Now I don’t know if that makes me conservative or not, but I am a believer.'


http://humanevents.com/2011/03/14/trump-unplugged/

Hey Jude said...

A little more digging turns up the full quote and interview in which Donakd Trump says, 'I am a Christian'.

http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2011/04/11/exclusive-donald-trump-to-brody-file-i-believe-in-god

If he says he's a Christian, that's good enough for me - however, I'd question what his understanding of being a Christian might be, in view of Jesus' teaching with regard to 'when you pray' - ' ...forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.' Asking for forgiveness, and acknowledging our sins, is a very basic requirement of Christian faith - somehow optional for the Donald, who cannot consider that he ever says or does anything wrong - even if he didn't, and was some sort of saint, which does not appear to be the case, he should still imagine that he did, for humility's sake.


Rose said...

I still think that is pretty weak. He just goes to church "as much as he can", which is probably Christmas and Easter. Clearly this man is not religious. He said "TWO Corinthians" at one point. I am an atheist and even I know it is SECOND Corinthians.

Hey Jude said...

I thought he was over-lambasted for Two Corinthians - it's short-hand, or does everyone in the US also say The First, Second, or Third Epistle of John, rather than one, two,or three John? Either's fine, to my mind, but then I, too, say two Corinthians rather than second, whilst knowing that 'correctly' it is second- I don't see a problem with that, just people being pedantic, wanting to make him appear foolish and ignorant on a minor point, though he doesn't need much help in that.

I agree, he's not religious in a sense that many would recognise - but he knows he needs Christian 'credentials' to win support, so he fulfils his 'obligations', and he says he is a Christian. I think that's best left between him and his God, if he has one. :) He wouldn't get my vote, which I suppose is the form of judgement I would be happier to pass in regard to that claim. Going to church and being 'religious' is no guarantee of faith either - at least he goes to church.

It's interesting how being Christian is important to hopefuls or presidential candidates - here (UK) a politician being anything like a conservative Christian with accompanying beliefs would likely be viewed as something of a disadvantage, or a negative - a liability rather than a vote-winner.

tania cadogan said...

Rose said...

I still think that is pretty weak. He just goes to church "as much as he can", which is probably Christmas and Easter. Clearly this man is not religious. He said "TWO Corinthians" at one point. I am an atheist and even I know it is SECOND Corinthians.

April 3, 2016 at 12:54 PM


I am an atheist.
However, since christian people believe their god is everywhere and every when, why does a believer need to visit a church multiple times a week let alone multiple times a year?

If their god is everywhere, then surely everywhere is a place for them to worship their god.

Is it not better to talk to their god in the natural world which he supposedly created whenever they feel the need, whenever they want to talk to their god rather thanh at fixed times in a man made building via a third party, IE the priest?

According to your beliefs, this man is not religious.
Religious belief is personal and unique.

Is someone up a mountain not religious because they don't visit a church every Sunday?
What about someone living in the middle of nowhere, such as Alaska?
What about sailors?
Submariners?
Does religious belief only happen if you visit a designated place and listen to a designated representative?

If you have a faith, then your god is always with you.

tania cadogan said...

As an aside.
In American presidential elections, it sems to be the one who spends the most money effectively buys the presidency, if they have enough bucks, they get to buy it twice.
Do vice presidents get a term limit as well?

Anyhow, in the UK each party in a general election, regardless of size, is allowed to spend a fixed amount of money on their campaign.
If more is spent that permitted, they can face serious penalties.
All income has to be accounted for.
All expenditure has to be accounted for.

Also our campaigns for elections are allowed to last only 4 weeks prior to the date of the election.
Again it is closely monitored and campaigning for longer etc results in penalties.
During the campaign, rules are made regarding what the party in power can say and do in regard to campigning and also running the country.

Once a party is elected to run the government we don't wait months for a televised handover it is one out and one in to 10 downing street and then the cabinet is selcted over the next few days.
It is all very smooth and efficient.

General elections are now held every 5 years and the Prime Minister has no term limits.

County council and borough councils elections are every 4 years (The people responsible for spending in each county and also those running the town, or boroughs in the big cities) half the country vote one year and the rest of the country votes 2 years later.

America seems to be permanently campaigning for one election or anotherand then they wonder why nothing seems to get done apart from spending a bucket load of other people's money

Nic said...

Tania said,
However, since christian people believe their god is everywhere and every when, why does a believer need to visit a church multiple times a week let alone multiple times a year?

If their god is everywhere, then surely everywhere is a place for them to worship their god.


Tania, you made me smile. I identify as RC and I do not go to church. We used to live across the road from a dear, church-going man who always asked me why he never saw us at church. I basically said what you said, Tania. This upset him quite a bit. He informed me that church wasn’t about being close to God, etc., it was about community (essentially what church means) and getting to know your neighbour. He informed me that knowing my neighbour was very important because who else would be looking out for me and the kids if my husband wasn’t around to take care of us. He’s nearing 90 so I can see from where he speaks. Unfortunately, communities aren’t like they were back in the day. Today, people can go a whole week and not see their neighbour.

Tania said,
America seems to be permanently campaigning for one election or anotherand then they wonder why nothing seems to get done apart from spending a bucket load of other people's money


We (Canada) went through the longest election in history last year. The old PM decided to prorogue parliament for the summer and let all members campaign as they saw fit. Voters (imo) were overly emotional about this. Each party has a “war chess” with which to campaign. It is private donations that fund a party/their campaign so whatever they’ve amassed is theirs to spend.

Hey Jude said...

Tania and Nic - it's not that people can't worship anywhere, but that meeting together is also important - the following is often used in support of regular church attendance:

Hebrews 10:
23 Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. 24. And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, 25 not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

Also:
James 5:16
Therefore, make it your habit to confess your sins to one another and to pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.

Better, stronger, together, basically. I don't go to church very often, but I still feel that I am part of the Body - I'm just not a very useful part. I don't like all the noise and light - I'd rather meditate and be mistaken for an atheist. :)

Hey Jude said...

How do people know which questions are rhetorical and which ones to answer? I noticed I only got so far before deciding, actually, they were probably all intended rhetorically - now it seems so as most have not responded to the questions.

tania cadogan said...

Hebrews 10:
23 Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. 24. And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, 25 not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.


If you go to church each week, all you are 'spurring on towards love and good deeds' is a fellow believer.
Surely it is better to not be praised by fellow believers at church for doing a good deed etc because they can see you doing it.
It is a case of look at me see i do good deeds and will go to heaven, mutual back slapping.

Is it not better to be outside a physical building, a church, encouraging others, spurring others to love one another and to do good deeds, others who are not of the same religion or any religion.

Is it not better to do a good deed because it makes someone else happy, it makes them feel good, it benefits the recipient, rather than being seen to do a good deed so your standing in the religious community is increased or because doing such a good deed guarantees you go to your heaven.

When you do something for another, are you doing it for their benefit or yours?
If you are doing it for your own benefit, then it becomes a selfish act, an act of greed.
You are doing it because by doing so, you get a good mark against your name in the book and it will get you admitted to your heaven.

If you are doing it for their benefit, even if it is a simple random act of kindness, letting someone go in front of you, holding a door open, listening to someone talk,something that isn't going to have people going gosh see how wonderful that person is, they did this and that, then that is a good deed, no expectation of reward or recognition in this life or the next, just the knowledge that today you made someone smile, you made someone feel appreciated.

To me, seeing someone do a deed and then go to church and say i did this week, look at me, see how charitable i am to those less well off is not encouraging or spurring.
It is buying ones way into your god's good books.

Doing something to benefit another without thinking about what is in it for you, doing it because you like to make people feel good about themselves, to feel as if they matter, they are not one of the invisible, someone cares about them is a good deed.
They feel good and will then do the same for someone else and it spreads out.

Hey Jude said...

Tania -you are preaching to the converted. :) The world should be a person's church, and the church is anywhere a believer happens to be - churches are just nice buildings with bad lighting. Well, not just - that's my bias. There are a lot of wonderful, selfless people to be found in churches - I'm not one of them, but I do like to go, sometimes - as in when I'm not being phobic about it.

tania cadogan said...

I like visiting churches and cathedrals, not for any religious reason, i visit because of the architecture, the beautiful stained glass windows, the history and even the atmosphere.
They can be peaceful and quiet, they can be educational, they can be historical.
Every church and cathedral is different.

We are lucky in the UK we have churches that are centuries old, a living timeline of the area they are in.
They have character and a presence, they have different styles depending on when they were built.
The graveyards reveal much about who lived there, the generations of the same family buried there, when tragedies struck or someone died particularly young or particularly old.
The headstones and designs can reveal what was fashionable at the time, the location can tell us who had a social standing, or did good deeds, who was bad.
Churches have a distinctive smell, the centuries of people coming and going, the aging of the building and contents, especially the really old ones.

Many years ago i went to Coventry with my then boyfriend.
I had never been before and i was interested in the history of the cathedral (and Lady Godiva)

The old cathedral had be pretty much destroyed in world war 2 so they built a new cathedral right next to the old one.
I knew there was a new cathedral somewhere, i didn't know where.
We went into a big building with vertical thin windows.
I thought it was a visitor centre, there was no atmosphere, no character, nothing.
I hated it.
I probably didn't make myself popular when the steps to the pulpit looked like a pile of inverted plastic office chairs.
I probably made myself less popular when i commented out loud on the the picture at the back of the church that it looked like jesus was giving birth.
The guy in charge gave me such a glare.

There was an exit on one side and it lead to the ruins of the original cathedral.
It was like walking through a curtain.
I went from feeling no atmosphere to being surrounded by atmosphere.
Although the ruins were open to the elements, i could feel the presence of the intact cathedral, i could feel the peace and the history.
It was amazing.

I often comment on a particularly pretty church that it would make a great home (Peterborough' cathedral is one) plus the neighbors would be quiet :)
I have seen some amazing conversions where the designer has made use of the spaces and lighting for the various rooms and yet leaving the churchiness of it.


Hey Jude said...

Oh, yes - I have been there, too. Coventry is not a greatly atmospheric - I found it dark, except I think it was the bell chapel, which has the most beautiful stained glass. That tapestry is awful - excepting for the face, which I found beautiful - it's the weird shape of Christ's body which spoils it - perhaps it was a sly cryptic comment on the state of the Church by the designer. That the cathedral is even there, all cross of nails, is remarkable though - if an English cathedral was destroyed in this age, I wonder if there would be enough will, or even interest to rebuild it...sad times. I can't remember if it is Coventry which has the little zen-like chapel with water and stones, a place to write prayer requests, and an Amnesty peace candle enclosed in barbed wire - if so, I liked that very much - though it could have been another cathedral.

I think this hymn of the atmosphere in the cathedral ruins:

These stones that have echoed their praises are holy,
and dear is the ground where their feet have once trod;
yet here they confessed they were strangers and pilgrims,
and still they were seeking the city of God.

Exeter Cathedral is well worth a visit, if you have not -It is especially beautiful. Also, there is an afternoon tea shop just across the way, in which to recover, if necessary. :) I have spent hours in the Cathedral looking at the amazing tapestry rondels, and will go back to look at them some more one nice day. I also like Hereford, Gloucester, Salisbury, Norwich, the magical St David's - especially Hereford, just to sit in, and all the medieval churches, so long as there are no services that day. I love to sit in an empty unlit church, except for candles - if you can't light a candle, I think they are not organised. St Paul's I do not care for - too many statues and monuments, it's like a junk yard.

I love that churches and cathedrals are steeped in the prayers of those who have gone before us, and that the prayer goes on, day in and day out, regardless of whether we join in, or not. Even when a choir can't sing, I like to think that there's always one somewhere which can, and that it's maybe singing Allegri's 'Misere' or something equally beautiful.






Hey Jude said...

Probably they can sing really - they are only rehearsing out of hours, after all.

Rose said...

Tania: I was not talking about Trump's own personal relationship with God. I was not making a judgement about any of that. What I was pointing out is that by using his own words, I can tell that Trump can only barely commit to being a religious man, when a firm commitment would most certainly win him a lot of votes. To me this is a strong sign that Trump is incredibly weak in religious belief. I do not care either way what his religion is, but I think it is fair to point out that his own words on this subject have not exactly been strong and forceful.

Anonymous said...

I enjoyed your post. I'm not religious either but I'm drawn to old churches and I feel safe inside them.

foodiefoodnerd said...

Quoting tanis:
Donald said he had never asked God's forgiveness for anything, and that he didn't need to - he doesn't do anything wrong - that's is a tad worrying from someone who professes to be a Christian.
~~~~

It's outright disturbing to me, unrelated to the religious aspect.

Anyone old enough to communicate and make decisions that affect others gets it wrong at least occasionally.

To claim one has never made a mistake, or done or said something requiring some form of forgiveness is delusional and dishonest.

Athiest, Christian, Jewish, we're all people which is universal for flawed.
If you've never harmed another even unintentionally, by definition you are furry; have four legs, a tail and a ridiculously cute face; and know how to work them.

Hey Jude said...

Foodie - you're quoting me, and you're right. Even a little acknowledgement that he's made at least some mistakes along the way would be helpful.