Life is a yearn to reside, and better still a desire to reside joyously. As we strive to satisfy this yearns, we encounter obstacles that perplex or frustrate our efforts. This difficulty or annoyance allowances to pain because it stands in the way of satisfaction.

Wisdom is designed to help us contend with this suffering. It is an adaptive product of cause in the face of strong circumstances. Thanks to it, joyfulness is conceivable and achievable in spite of everything. It is thus the supreme good.

Actually, religion is a good that numerous grade equally high, since it serves the identical reason as wisdom, if distinctly. The difference lies in the way belief and wisdom depict suffering and characterize the meaning of life.

From the perspective of religion, pain betrays a state of worldly imperfection that is in contradiction with the human yearn for perfect joyfulness. Consequently, life here underneath – where humans are condemned to suffer – is absurd in itself. Or rather, life is significant strictly in terms of means to a fantastic end in the large after: A life of virtue organizes the way for an afterlife of bliss. The religious accept as true this in agreement with the teachings of an motivated religious foremost, who assertions to know the transcendental environment of the hereafter.

While personally I cast a skeptical eye on these teachings, I keep my brain open. They are highly doubtful, but the transcendental environment of their object places them after the come to of any discredit founded on conclusive clues.

anyhow, as I glimpse it, wisdom is independent of belief, though it can complement the latter. According to it, life in itself has significance, regardless of its imperfection that people can discover to accept. Better still, they can discover to worth this imperfection as they recognize that perfection, contrary to well liked conviction, is not infinitely attractive.

Indeed, flawless happiness leaves certain thing to be desired. By delineation, it omits pain and therefore all forms of complication or frustration. It supposes that attenuating factors are wholeheartedly favorable – that is, not strong in any way. Thus, no effort is essential while every dream is likely. At first glimpse, this noise like the most magnificent position imaginable, and yet taking another gaze at it will dispel this illusion.

What odd whim, in the annals of humankind, has compelled persons from every stroll of life to depart their cozy dwelling and embark on risky projects? Perhaps this whim is not so odd after all. A multitude of conquests have been made for the sheer joy of conquering against large odds. The operative phrase is pride, accompanied by exhilaration. To conquest-minded persons the infinite alleviate of heaven entails infinite boredom. To them life – simultaneously with the struggle that is integral to it – is the very thing that flawless happiness departs to be desired. It is an opportunity to verify courageous and victorious, though it is furthermore a risk of falling short painfully.

Joyfulness is about grasping this opportunity with bravery and profiting a victory over the obstacles that stand between us and achievement in all the activities that most issue to us. This victory is often strenuous and always restricted, precarious, and transitory, and we are bound to lose the battle in the end; but that makes the triumph all the more prized and worthy of savoring.

When endeavoring to characterize the undertakings in which we most care to do well, we are compelled to study our environment to know our reason. Our growing shrewd depends on this study and this information, leading to this definition. It begins with a perception of our animal will to endure, as survival is the base on which life, in the truly human sense, is constructed. The awareness of life in this sense follows. It takes into account both our humanity and our individuality, as constituents of society with specific flavors and abilities to which a broad variety of undertakings are matched.

The clearer we are about our reason, the more we can live our lives with conclusion and passion, and so with a larger possibility of doing well and accomplishing happiness. The reverse is equally factual. It thus stands to cause that in striving after wisdom we lay the groundwork for achievement and happiness.

Introduction

Policy makers in many countries base their codes of ethics on certain Religious and Ethical Systems.   Widely varying cultures and ways of looking at the worlds make it difficult, if not impossible, to find a common ethical system from which to operate.  While one individual may have certain values they hold dear, how they’re able to hold their company to a religious paradigm is always a hot topic.  In the points below, the different systems are explained and hopefully will provide a clearer understanding as to the basis of decision making.

The Idea in a Nutshell

Humans base their values either on what rules they value, what consequences arise from their actions, what society says is right or whether they are simply a moral person.  Explaining each system works best when contrasted with the others.  For example, Deontology is concerned with duty and what rules to follow while consequentialism is merely concerned with the outcome of the actions.  A deontologist would never condone lying while a consequentialist would allow it if lying caused no harm.  Pragmatic Ethics would consider lying to be okay if society allowed it while Virtue Ethics would consider it harmful because it runs contrary to a person’s innate goodness.  The Divine Command Theory says lying is wrong because God says so, while Natural Law says humans have the right to lie.  Righteous Moralism would allow lying if the home country allowed lying, Cultural Relativism, while maybe not condoning lying, would allow it if the host culture thought nothing of it.  Kantian Ethics would only allow lying if human rights were respected and the Friedman Doctrine wouldn’t care if one lied as long as it was legal and benefited the company.

The 10 Things You Need to Know About Religious and Ethical Systems

1.    Deontological Ethics is a philosophy based on what an individual has a duty to do.  They are not based on the results of the duties or rules, but rather on the rules themselves.  Individuals holding to a deontological ethical system would never break one of his/her rules in order to bring about a greater good (Alexander, 2007).  A business involved in deontological practices would adhere strictly to the letter of the law by doing exactly what it said, even if it resulted in negative consequences for the business and the employees.
2.    Consequentialism differs from deontology by focusing on the outcome of actions, rather than on any particular rule set.  A consequentialist does not worry about whether the actions themselves are particularly harmful, but rather what the result of those actions will be.  A business believing primarily in this theory would not have qualms about using child labor, unless using child labor effected the company more negatively than positively.    In other words, anything is permissible as long as it is beneficial.
3.    Society is held as the ultimate moral compass in Pragmatic Ethics.  Pragmatism is generally the philosophy of ethics to which science adheres.  Science recognizes that what is true and relevant today may cease to be true tomorrow.  Dissident is considered valuable, because it keeps society on a path towards greater truth.  In other words, if we have been properly taught by societal values, then we are moral people (LaFollette, 2000).  Judged by pragmatism, a slave trader would have been perfectly ethical to his time period, but unethical in a modern society which values humanity and freedom above station in life.
4.    Virtue Ethics is different from the other ethical systems in that they depend on the character of the individual for their basis of the “good”.  The morality of a person is based on their intrinsic function as humans or more on “being” than on “doing”.  A human attains values by being correctly taught and then continues being their moral selves.  According to Annas, a virtuous human would do “the right thing for the right reason without serious internal opposition, as a matter of character”.
5.    Divine Command Theory equates “good” with the adherence to that which a deity proscribes.  Some view this to mean an action is not good because there is intrinsic benefit to the action, but rather it is good because the deity has commanded it to be done.  Samuel Wheeler, however, supposes that because God’s intentions are good, He would not proscribe an action without it at first being a good action.  

6.    One of the most famous American proponents of natural rights or Natural Law was Thomas Jefferson.  He interpreted natural law to mean that human have intrinsic rights simply because we are human.  Because we have the ability to make moral judgments and discern between good and evil, we have rights that no human law system can ever take away.  The Declaration of Independence refers to a “separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them” and by merely being human, we have “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (Jefferson, 1776).
7.    Righteous Moralism subscribes to the belief that the standards of ethics from a corporation’s home country are the correct standards to follow in foreign countries.  For example, McGraw Hill’s International Business tells of an American accountant who went to Italy and found them under-reporting earnings.  He was upset, but came to discover that Italy compensates for under-reporting by assuming everyone is under-reporting.  Because the foreign national wanted to correctly report the earnings, he was costing the company more than what it actually should be paying in taxes.  As a result, we learn that not every situation can be given the same ethical treatment we would give it in our home country.
8.    Cultural or Ethical Relativism is the philosophy that all ethics are relative to the culture in which one finds oneself.   A business model applying ethical relativism would find it acceptable to bribe officials if that country which considered bribes acceptable.  A multinational corporation would hold different countries accountable for different things and would not look badly on a division which could justify their actions culturally.  Currently, however, this theory is not widely held by many corporations and is severely frowned upon due to its inability to hold up under closer scrutiny.
9.    Kantian Ethics holds that individual rights should be viewed as all important and not merely as road signs along the path. The ultimate goal of society should be to treat people with respect and dignity.  In a negative sense, it limits the behavior of an individual.  For example, if an individual’s primary goal is self-preservation, then sky-diving would appear to limit one’s actions (Johnson, 2010).
10.    In 1970, Milton Friedman wrote a paper outlining his belief that a business exists solely to maximize profits as long as it does it legally.  The Friedman Doctrine, as it has come to be known, does not advocate any action unless it is explicitly required to be done by law or unless it benefits the bottom line of a business.  For example, Friedman wouldn’t advocate Starbucks’ mission to be socially responsible by educating coffee laborers in foreign countries unless it increased their profits as well.  Participating in an activity merely because it is the right thing to do is not enough.

The Video Lounge

Joseph R. DesJardins believes that Ethics is an attempt to answer the question, “How should we live?”  Different philosophical approaches to this question answer the question in different ways.  If one decides to live life the way the culture wants, then the individual has to rationally decide whether the way the culture wants us to live is right or whether it is right because the culture wants us to live this way.  We shouldn’t just take any ethical system at face value, but should always be active in examining our own morality.

My Take

Instilling ethics in the workplace is such a tricky situation.  How one decides which philosophy to follow or which rules to put in place may be second guessed by everyone.  I truly believe each individual has the right and the responsibility to discover the truth for themselves and hold themselves accountable to a high ethical standard.  Many of the aforementioned philosophies depend on the culture around them to tell them how to live their lives.  The question then becomes, “Who exactly is the culture?”  We are our culture. Our core values must therefore be formed apart from our culture and based on solid and universal truths.    If we form our culture from our beliefs which are taken from our culture, then our moral foundation is very weak and liable to crack.  

References

Alexander, Larry and Michael Moore (2007, November 21). Deontological Ethics. Retrieved from http://Plato.Stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/

Annas, Julia. (2002). Virtue Ethics.  Retrieved from http://www.u.Arizona.edu/~jannas/forth/coppvirtue.htm

DesJardins, Joseph R. (2011, June 15). What is Ethics?. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/3fMLIMaPw0I

Jefferson, Thomas. (1776, July 4). The Declaration of Independence. Retrieved from http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

Johnson, Robert. (2010, Summer). Kant’s Moral Philosophy. Retrieved from http://Plato.Stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=Kant-moral

LaFollette, Hugh. (2000). Pragmatic Ethics in Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory. Retrieved from http://www.hughlafollette.com/papers/pragmati.htm

Pragmatic ethics. (2012, January 10). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 16, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pragmatic_ethics&oldid=470584920

Wheeler, Samuel. (2002, January). A Defense of the Divine Command Theory.  Retrieved from http://www.philosophy.uconn.edu/department/wheeler/divine.pdf

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Contact Information

To contact the author of “The Top Ten Management Primer on Religious and Ethical Systems,” please email Christina Read at Christina.read@gmail.com.

About the Publisher  

David C. Wyld (dwyld.kwu@gmail.com) is the Robert Maurin Professor of Management at Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond, Louisiana. He is a management consultant, researcher/writer, and executive educator. His blog, Wyld About Management, can be viewed at http://wyldaboutmanagement.blogspot.com/. He also serves as the Director of the Reverse Auction Research Center (http://reverseauctionresearch.com/), a hub of research and news in the expanding world of competitive bidding. Dr. Wyld also maintains compilations of his student’s publications regarding:

• management concepts (http://toptenmanagement.blogspot.com/)
• book reviews (http://wyld-about-books.blogspot.com/) and
• international foods  (http://wyld-about-food.blogspot.com/)                                         

   You see a lot in the news lately about how Obama is infringing on Religious Freedom with the law mandating that Catholic Business owner provide contraception care for their employees. Now when I first heard this, like many people, I jumped to the conclusion that we were somehow waging war on the Catholic Church. However, after I did some research and found what the law actually said, I quickly changed my mind. You see a lot today that leads you from conclusion to conclusion, especially with the Republican Primaries currently going on. Anything they can snatch at to try and get the backing of the people (as if they really needed it) they grab on to and won’t let go of. I personally like to think for myself, which is why I did some research into this.

   The law that was pushed through (from Congress) mandated that Religious business owners, of all types, must provide contraception care for their employees of different beliefs. What does this means? This means if your not a Catholic, but you work for a Catholic business, then contraceptive care should be available to you, through the insurance provider of that company. The rebuttal to this from the Catholic Church was that they didn’t care what you believe, they don’t believe in contraceptive care and therefor would not be forced to provide it. The Republic Parties if you have noticed have latched on to this and stated that it was impinging on religious freedom! That’s completely wrong to begin with, Catholic business’s are forcing their beliefs onto their employees whether they like or not, that’s an infringement on religious freedom! Of course there are a great many Americans who bought into this crap because as Americans, we don’t do research ourselves, we expect it to have already been done. Unfortunately that’s never the case and always turns around to bite us.

   I know that our votes don’t matter, and lot of people are coming to realize that. However, that does not mean that we should not be informed! The whole point behind the education system was to make sure that the people knew what the government was doing. Religious parties would prefer us not to know what’s going on. It makes things easier on them. Our fore-fathers had the fore sight to separate the church and state. They also had the fore sight to make that we were all educated so that we could understand what was going on from BOTH sides. This law should have never been an issue and the Government should of had our backing in this. Especially since 99% of all women use a contraceptive in their lifetime!

How do we as humans receive knowledge? This question is one of the most thought out and discussed questions throughout the ages.  Almost all philosophers have tried to obtain their own answer to this question.  Philosophy is the study of one’s own ideas and answering universal questions.  Four philosophers that will be written about are Plato, Rene Descartes, David Hume, and Bertrand Russell.  The best and worst part about philosophy is there isn’t a right or wrong answer because it’s about the philosopher’s beliefs.

            The first philosopher is Plato.  Plato’s main belief of knowledge is that knowledge comes from recollection, and that our soul has learned everything before now.  He also believes in reincarnation so our soul is reborn multiple times until we become a true “Lover of Wisdom” (Phadeo).  After each life our soul learns new things and adds to its knowledge after each life time.  Referring to that idea Plato said, “As the soul is immortal, has been born often, and has seen all things here and in the underworld, there is nothing which it has not learned; so it is in no way surprising that it can recollect the things it knew before, both about virtue and other things” (Meno 81d).  Our soul already knows all knowledge and it is up to ourselves to bring it out of us; Plato also said, “And he will know it without having been taught but only questioned, and find the knowledge within himself” (Meno 85d).  Plato gives an example of “the square” where he asks this young man if he knows this certain mathematical problem, and the young man assured him that he doesn’t know anything about the problem.  So he starts with questioning him about the square and about adding size to the square.  As time goes on he asks series of questions that adds more knowledge to how to solve this problem.  In the end the young man solves and understands the square, Plato says, “I shall do nothing more than ask questions and not teach him” (Meno 84d).  Another example Plato gives to disprove senses is not the way to discover knowledge and that recollection is the way to knowledge, is the two equal sticks.  Two sticks may appear to be the same because they look the same width and length, but one stick really has knots and curves out.  You use your knowledge from within yourself to know the two sticks aren’t the same or equal.  Adding, Plato can’t believe in physical objects.  “The body confuses the soul and does not allow it to acquire truth and wisdom whenever it is associated with it,” believed Plato.

            Another great philosopher is Rene Descartes.  When it comes to knowledge Descartes believes that knowledge and ideas are forced into us by god or external bodies, and he can’t trust in physical objects.  He also believes in the Evil Demon Thought Experiment, which is assuming there is an evil spirit who tries to deceive us about everything.  So we can’t be positive about our sense perception, “senses are sometimes deceptive” (Descartes 14), because it might be a trick by the evil spirit.  That leads us to the question, are we alive?  We know we are alive because in order to be deceived by the evil spirit we must be alive.  Another idea Descartes believes in is the Wax Thought Experiment.  When wax melts and turns from a solid to a liquid and changes appearance we know it’s the same thing just in a different state, and we know this not because of perception or imaginary but because of pure reason.  Therefore knowledge comes to us by intellect, and our mind is better to us than our body.  “I am therefore precisely nothing but a thinking thing; that is, a mind, or intellect, or understanding, or reason—words of whose meanings I was previously ignorant.  Yet I am a true thing and am truly existing; but what kind of thing? I have said it already: a thinking thing” (Descartes 19), reflected Descartes. 

            The third philosopher is David Hume.  He believes that all knowledge comes through our senses, and that our impressions turn into our ideas.  Hume wrote, “All our ideas or more feeble perceptions are copies of our impressions or more lively ones” (Hume 11).  He also believes “there to be only three principles of connexion among ideas, namely, resemblance, contiguity in time or place, and cause or effect” (Hume 14).  When it comes to matters of fact and relations of ideas we use reason.  David Hume also is a believer in cause and effect, “what is the nature of all our reasoning concerning matter of fact? . . . they are founded on the relation of cause and effect,” (Hume 21).  Through cause and effect we learn that A is followed by b, i.e. lightning is followed by thunder.  Although, Hume doesn’t know what makes cause and effect possible. 

            Lastly¸ Bertand Russell believes in external objects and we rely on sensory perception.  He gives an example of the table to help the argument between appearances vs. reality.  When we look at a table we can see the color, texture, shape, and size.  But as we get closer or the table moves, everything changes from what we previously saw, and also if many people look at the same table there will not be any two same appearances.  “Because experiences has taught us to construct the ‘real’ shape from the apparent shape, and the ‘real’ shape is what interests us as practical men.  But the ‘real’ shape is not what we see; it is something inferred from what we see.  And what we see is constantly changing in shape as we move about the room,” (Hume 11) said Hume.  From all our senses we gain sense data about an object for example the table earlier talked about.  All we experience are ideas, but we never experience physical objects.  Even though we can’t experience physical objects the ‘Cat Argument’ proves external objects are real.  A cat is in one part of the room and we can see it, but when we leave the room does the cat still exist or is it just sense data?  We leave the cat, and when we return the cat will be hungry, tired, and in a different location, which shows that the cat exists independently of our minds and really exists. 

            Among all the philosophers Plato and Descartes are similar to each other; also Hume and Russell are similar to each other.  Empiricism means the doctrine that all knowledge ultimately consists of what is acquired by sensory perception and Plato along with Descartes fall into that group.  In contrast Hume and Russell are rationalists where they believe the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from the contents and operations of the mind alone from pure reason.  Another belief is Hume and Russell believes in physical objects and external objects; whereas Plato and Descartes cannot trust in physical objects.

            I believe in a mixture of all these philosophies.  First off I believe in recollection from the knowledge of our soul, but I also think our soul doesn’t know everything.  We have to learn things on our own through experiences.  Another idea I believe in is sensory perception.  Our senses give us ideas and knowledge, but we also use reason corresponded with our sense data.  These four philosophers’ beliefs are on the extreme of both scales, but I would put my trust in the middle of both.  Things from both sides working together help us reach the fullest of knowledge.  God gives us our mind and body to work together to achieve greatness in this life, but we will never fully understand or have all knowledge while being alive.  I do believe with Plato where we will have all knowledge when we die and how we shouldn’t be scared of death, but rather accept it when the time is right.  Although, I do not think our souls will go through the cycle of reincarnation.  We will only live one life and we better not ruin the chances we receive during this one lifetime.  If we give our all and try our hardest in this life, our father in heaven will help make up the rest for us once we pass away.

Introduction

Most western economists would agree that Buddhism and traditional economic objectives are polar opposites. Contrary to the western idea that maximum consumption defines an economy’s prosperity, Buddhist economics embraces the idea of achieving maximum satisfaction using a minimum of resources.

The Idea in a Nutshell

According to the theory of Buddhist economics, consumption is defined as the use of goods and services to fulfill a population’s pleasure. Instead of the west’s economic concept of Gross National Product, Buddhist economics focuses on Gross National Happiness as a means of measuring an economy’s affluence. Buddhist economics claims that the west’s ideas of prosperity are merged with greed and the concept of “self.” According to Buddhist beliefs, there is no such thing as “self”, all life (plants, animals, human beings, etc.) is connected as one.

The 10 Things You Need to Know About Buddhism and It’s Economic Implications

1.     Buddhism is a philosophy or “way of life,” founded by Siddhartha Gautama (known as “the enlightened one”) during the 6th century in India. The 4th largest religion in the world, Buddhism is found mainly in China, Japan, Korea, and Southeast Asia.

2.    Concepts such as reincarnation, karma, and yoga are associated with Buddhism. Buddhists believe in living a modest life that ultimately leads to Nirvana: the end of suffering through the elimination of craving and desire.

3.    Western economic ideals are based on the Protestant interpretation of success. They believe that more is more, wealth is happiness, and that there is no limit to success. Buddhist economics focuses on the principle of less is more.

4.    In order for growth and prosperity, Western economic achievement often comes at the expense of the environment. According to Buddhist economics, direct harm to the environment is thought as reckless and contradicts their belief that minimum consumption brings maximum prosperity and happiness.

5.    E.F. Schumacher was an economist in Britain who created a book using his collection of essays titled Small Is Beautiful: Economics As If People Mattered, published in 1973. In the book, Schumacher explains his belief that the western economy is unsustainable. Too many non-renewable resources are being consumed and nature will not resist pollution forever.

Cover via Amazon

6.    In his book, E.F. Schumacher challenges the modern economist’s claim that economics is a science. He argues that ethics must be taken into account when measuring a society’s success. He says, “The substance of man cannot be measured by Gross National Product.”

7.    Frank Dixon, a sustainability advisor, is a critic who challenges the modern idea of Gross National Product.  He says that because GNP only measures things such as production and spending, it fails to measure other things that contribute to a society’s well-being.  

8.    Frank Dixon believes we should be measuring a society’s parenting, volunteering, and happiness. He also believes that we should be measuring the destruction of our non-renewable natural assets (water, trees, oxygen) when determining our success. He says, “What doesn’t get measured, doesn’t get managed.” 

9.    Something to think about: “Fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, take centuries to form naturally, and crude oil takes millions of years to form. These resources are not infinite and over time, most experts believe they will cease to exist.”    

10.    Buddhist economics challenges our society’s objectives in that it is essentially the opposite of our goals. Being that our country is based on the Protestant philosophy of wealth creation, Buddhist economic ideals would not satisfy what we define as economic success.

The Video Lounge

This is a video of the economist E. F. Schumacher explaining why he thinks Buddhist economics must be implemented in the west. He says that we need to focus on maximizing satisfaction not consumption, and reaching that satisfaction with the least possible consumption.  By highlighting the fact that we are burdened with clutter, Schumacher tells us how the western theory of economics sets us up to be in a “rat race” to maintain that clutter.

My Take

Through my research I’ve become very intrigued by this idea of Buddhist economics. Buddhists believe that unhappiness stems from cravings and desires to have materialistic things. By eliminating the cravings, happiness is then achieved. It makes sense, but the challenge is eliminating the cravings. It’s part of the American culture that success is to work extremely hard to accumulate wealth and therefore happiness.  I do agree with the fact that we have to take more care of our environment, not only for ourselves, but for our future generations. The above video of E.F. Schumacher voicing his concerns for our environment was filmed in 1977. 35 years later, global economic growth has soared. One has to wonder about the state of our environment compared to its state in 1977. Definitely something to think about.

References

Carty, Sue Lynn. (n.d.) Non-Renewable Resources. Retrieved from http://greenliving.lovetoknowcom/non_renewable_resources

Daniels, Peter. (March 2005). Economic Systems and the Buddhist World View: the 21st Century Nexus. Journal of Socio-Economics, Volume 34, Issue 2.  Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053535704000691

Dixon, Frank. (February 2004). Gross National Happiness: Improving Unsustainable Western Economic Systems. Retrieved from www.enlightennext.org/magazine/business/…/Dixon-happiness.doc

Dwyer, John. (n.d.). Protestant vs. Buddhist Economics. Retrieved from
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma5/provsbudeco.html

Schumacher, E.F. (1973). Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered. London: Blond & Briggs Ltd.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Contact Information

To contact the author of “The Top Ten Management Primer on Buddhism and its Economic Implications,” please email lauren.Hayes@selu.edu or laurenahc86@gmail.com.

About the Publisher  

David C. Wyld (dwyld.kwu@gmail.com) is the Robert Maurin Professor of Management at Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond, Louisiana. He is a management consultant, researcher/writer, and executive educator. His blog, Wyld About Management, can be viewed at http://wyldaboutmanagement.blogspot.com/. He also serves as the Director of the Reverse Auction Research Center (http://reverseauctionresearch.com/), a hub of research and news in the expanding world of competitive bidding. Dr. Wyld also maintains compilations of his student’s publications regarding:

• management concepts (http://toptenmanagement.blogspot.com/)
• book reviews (http://wyld-about-books.blogspot.com/) and
• international foods  (http://wyld-about-food.blogspot.com/)                                         

It is a sad day when your son comes to you and ask, “Can the government kick ___ race from the country?”.  At the young age of 11, to ask that question, shows that is truly something wrong with the government of the day!  How do you expect people to have the sense of patriotism when even the children think that they will be kicked out of the country?

Respect

As children, we were always thought to respect others and their culture.   Respect goes both ways.  You should not expect respect without giving respect.   However, all too often, the power that be expect everyone else to expect their culture and religion but do not give back in return.  

One example, is the dishes served in a compulsory training program.  The food served represent sacred animal of a specific religion but is served without any consideration for that culture.   This is hypocrisy in the highest order.

faith (Photo credit: Jeff Attaway)

Natives

In all countries, there are the original natives of the land.   However, in the pursuit of greed, this definition has been hijacked and many of those who claim to be natives and enjoy special privileges are not even from this country.  Meanwhile, the true natives are cast aside and live in abject poverty.  Their land are stolen and people raped by workers in the companies belonging to powerful warlords!

To make things worst, many illegals are given citizenship without due process.  All in making sure those in power continue to remain in power.

Religion

Religion is used and manipulated.  These are all done in the name of protecting the faith.  However, if you analyze the situation, the very act insults the faith, they claim to protect.   

Their believe is their faith is so weak that those of the faith can be easily turned – by reading the the book from other faith or even listening to mp3 of other faith.

Those who convert to their faith are also considered to transfer all their worldly belong to that faith.  Meaning the inheritance cannot be passed to their family if the rest of the family is not of that faith.    You cannot have two masters – you have to choose between God or worldly posession.     Clearly, this sound like the latter.

In that religion, it is compulsory to pay a percentage of the income to help the poor and yet so many of the poor in that religion has to get help from the charitable organizations of other faith.  Since those of that religion makes up majority of the country, where do the collection go?

Language

Language unites the people.  Often the country has their national language for this purpose.  However, it is difficult when

1. you are not allowed to use the language to pray!   
2. most of the original words are discarded and replaced with badly spelt words of another language.

Education

Education standards are lowered to help a certain group of people pass.  The higher education is also restricted to that group of people.  This has resulted in lower level of education quality.   Many of these graduates can’t even do basic communication.

Also a lot of institutions are set up for profit without quality.   Those who have employed graduates from these institutions have complained about the ability of these graduates and quite often these institutions get blacklisted.

As a result, those children who go into these institutions will end up with worthless pieces of paper that is neither recognized locally nor outside the country.   

Conclusion

It is sad to see all these problems and sometimes as concerned parents, we feel helpless.   What would you do?

Other articles of interest:
Vote with Your Wallet
Faith and Religion
Education (Or in Name only)

Gambling in the United States

Horse racing was popular in colonial America. In the mid-1800’s, professional card players plied their trade in the gambling halls of the West and on steamships traveling the Mississippi River. And, just as today, states used lotteries to raise revenue. (In a lottery, players bet that a group of numbers they have chosen will match several or all the winning numbers chosen in a random drawing.)

In 1887 the invention of the slot machine revolutionized gambling. Players deposited coins in the machine and pulled a handle to set it in motion. They either won or lost money depending on the symbols that appeared on the machine. With slot machines, people could wager without having the skills needed to succeed at playing cards or betting on horses. But gambling was considered a vice by many, especially religious groups. So it was made illegal in every state by 1910.

In 1931, in response to revenue shortages during the Great Depression, Nevada became the first state to legalize casino gambling. Several states had approved horse racing by 1935. In 1941 the first “modern” casino opened in the town of Las Vegas, Nevada. Called El Rancho Las Vegas, it was located on a highway now famous as “The Strip.” El Rancho Las Vegas offered slot machines, gaming tables, rooms to rent, dining, and entertainment. This is basically the same mix offered by today’s casinos.

In 1963, New Hampshire established the first legal state lottery in 70 years. State lotteries eventually spread throughout most of the country. In the 1970’s a few states legalized off-track betting (OTB). OTB offers gamblers the convenience of betting on races without being at the track. In 1976, New Jersey emerged as the second state to permit casino gambling, which became centered in Atlantic City.

Image via Wikipedia

The next major stage in casino gambling occurred in 1988, when American Indian casinos became legal. This was the result of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (1988) and subsequent court decisions. In 1992, the tiny Mashantucket Pequot Indian nation opened one of the most successful casinos. It is called Foxwoods and is located in Ledyard, Connecticut. Others followed, on and off Indian reservations, throughout the United States.

In the 1990’s some states also began authorizing casino gambling on riverboats along the Mississippi River. The 1990 Mississippi Gaming Control Act allowed casino gambling in counties along the Mississippi River and Gulf Coasts. But local voters had to approve. By 2008, there were 29 such properties in those areas in Mississippi, drawing millions of visitors. Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, and Missouri also have authorized riverboat gambling.

Most legal gambling operations in the United States are run for profit by corporations or state governments. But there is also charitable gambling, such as that used by churches to raise money for good causes. Examples of games used by charities include bingo and raffles. Bingo is a numbers-based game of chance played for prizes. In a raffle, players buy tickets for a chance to win a prize.

Online Gambling

Yet another type of gambling took hold in the 1990’s and 2000’s. The first online casino began operating in August 1995. By 2007 more than 400 companies around the world were operating over 2,000 Web sites. The sites offer wagering on sports, casino games, lotteries, and bingo. In 2006 an estimated 14 to 20 million people gambled nearly $15 billion at these sites. This included 4 million Americans.

A host of Asian, European, and Latin American countries have legalized Internet gambling.

Growth of Gambling

Image via Wikipedia

Gambling in the United States has grown largely because many Americans have come to accept it as a legitimate way to have fun and be entertained. Some form of legalized gambling is now available in the District of Columbia and all U.S. states except Hawaii and Utah. In most states, the minimum legal age for gambling is 21. But in some states it is 18. Las Vegas, Nevada, is the world’s most important gaming center. It is also the most visited tourist destination in the United States. In 2008 Las Vegas drew more than 50 million domestic and foreign visitors. They spent more than $11 billion at the gaming tables and slot machines.

Spending on casino and charitable gambling and on lotteries and wagers on racing jumped from about $8 billion in 1982 to over $92 billion in 2007. Some 25 percent of U.S. households visited a casino at least once.

Political and Social Issues

The expansion of gambling is an important political issue in the United States. In 1999 a national commission found problem gambling to be one of the most important negative aspects of the spread of gambling. Problem gamblers tend to need to bet more money more frequently and find it difficult to stop. They also continue to gamble even when it results in negative consequences, such as bankruptcy. Some 6 to 9 million Americans are thought to be problem gamblers.

Of particular concern to lawmakers is gambling by young people. This is because they are even more likely than adults to become problem gamblers. Some 600,000 young people aged 14 to 22 are reported to gamble online each week. In 2006, the U.S. government intensified its efforts to prohibit online gambling, including preventing online gamblers from using credit cards.

To read the full article, please go to the author’s website.  This article has been moved do to copyright concerns.

  A lot has been made of this verse but I am going to simplify.  I’ll let the intellectuals find the needle.  What I am mostly interested in at this point in my life is the Father/Son relationship with God.  So I ask , “Why did our Father create us to look like Him?” 

  Can you think of anything more natural for a Father to do?  I can’t.  I wanted my children to look like me.  And if anyone said so, it pleased me. This is just another easy-to-understand hint from the Father on how much He wanted us to be His family.  From the beginning of time, He wanted this.  And nothing should be more pleasing to us, and to God, than for someone to say we look just like our Father in heaven.  Physically, they aren’t going to say this.  But spiritually?  Yes, they will.  All we have to do is to look like our Brother, Jesus, and we will look like our Father as well.  Because Jesus said, “If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen the Father.” John 14:9   So if we look like Jesus in our character and like the Father in our design, then we  look like the Father both from birth and also from rebirth!  See how much our Father desires us to be His children?!  Beautiful!  Both inside and out!  

  Don’t let anyone convince you that you are ugly.  It’s just not the truth.  We look like our Father and He is beautiful!

are unaware of this topic. I also felt a little awkward when, for the first time, I read an article in which it had been demanded that voluntary death should be accepted as a constitutional right.  Though, in western countries this demand has been in calling for much earlier. Many books have been written and published there on this subject. It was said that in modern age of science a pill or technique should be researched which can make a person’s death comfortable and painless who wants to die at his will. The reasons in their support they give are that if a person suffering from incurable diseases like cancer or in disability he depends wholly on others, it is better to die rather than suffer a lot of pains and uncomforts. For this he needs a legal right to die at his will. Though a legal right could not be achieved, it established in different countries such institutions, hospitals and organizations that provide medicines and advices for those who want to accept voluntary death.

Let’s see antiquity of involuntary death. There are ample proofs of the prevalence of involuntary death in Indian mythology and ancient scriptures. For instance, body abandoned by sage Sutikshan Muni in the period of Ramayana. It is said in Ramcharitmanas- Ehi bidhi sar rachi muni Sarbhanga|Baithe hriday chhadi sab sanga|| And in the era of Mahabharat, the story of Bhisma’s death is not hidden to anyone. On considering deeply, we come toknow that both of of them had attained sddhi and and their fame spread out far and wide as great men in their life time. Such a person, who has gave up everything for his country and society, his voluntary death has never been termed as suicide; and to call it so is improper and condemnable. In this way we find that Hindu Scriptures accept right to voluntary death. Here it is to be noted that it was never announced from any