Making sense of my former belief
On occasion as a child, I would watch The 700 Club, the flagship television program of the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN). At that time in my life, I believed in Judeo-Christian doctrine and had faith that Yeshua (Jesus) was the son of Yahweh (Jehovah).
Here, “faith” represents a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. As an example, it’s an unfalsifiable claim to declare absolutely that there is or isn’t a deity that created the world. Therefore, one may have faith that Yahweh created the world and that He has a son named Yeshua.
Faith-based assertions like this cannot be assessed through the process of science, because there’s no objective evidence to support or reject the hypothesis. For instance, I can’t test a God-based hypothesis with evidence that isn’t materially available.
Likewise, such claims don’t comport with logical and reasonable (collectively “rational”) examination, because these beliefs are predicated on a lack of proof and committed allegiance to a belief-based structure. To illustrate my point, consider the following syllogism:
Form –
If p, then q; if q, then r; therefore, if p, then r.
Example –
If I believe that God exists, then God exists.
If God exists, then no one can shake my faith in His existence.
Therefore, if I believe that God exists, then no one can shake my faith in His existence.
To a young boy who was raised with Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW) beliefs from my dad, though who was also exposed to evangelical Christian practice in association with my mom, the aforementioned seemingly rational premises and conclusions made sense. It’s what underlay my allegiance to my belief-based structure at the time.
Thus, messages from The 700 Club made sense to me. Although I’ve no interest in deconstructing tenets of Christianity herein, nor will I take issue with content of the CBN, I think it useful to make sense of my former belief and to build upon my history of subsequent beliefs.
Belief in the rule of law
As the current post is the 700th on my blog, I consider it useful to address the rationality and irrationality of beliefs I’ve adopted or abandoned throughout my lifetime. After all, the majority of my blog content pertains to Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) and this psychotherapeutic modality addresses one’s belief systems.
I’ve long sense abandoned religiously faith-based assumptions I maintained in my youth. Nevertheless, there’s one belief onto which I’ve still held that I learned of as a child.
My dad taught me the rule of law which one source describes as “a political ideal that all citizens and institutions within a country, state, or community are accountable to the same laws, including lawmakers and leaders.” It may seem odd to some that a JW member advocated a political idea.
Although my dad wasn’t politically-affiliated, he taught me that I was personally responsible and accountable for my behavior. Supreme law of the universe was Jehovah’s, though in the dominion which Satan was said to rule (the Earth), there were subsequent laws to which I was accountable, per Romans 13 and Titus 3:1.
For instance, one JW source states, “Although we do not take part in politics, we respect the authority of the governments under which we live.” Noteworthy, REBT theory incorporates Stoicism which maintains justice as one of its core virtues.
Thus, even in my current secularist method of living, belief in the rule of law isn’t something to be easily dismissed. However, it’s worth noting that although such belief isn’t necessarily a religious faith-based assumption, it follows the same syllogistic underpinnings of faith:
Form –
If p, then q; if q, then r; therefore, if p, then r.
Example –
If the rule of law is good, then I should obey laws of the land.
If I should obey laws of the land, then law will righteously represent me.
Therefore, if the rule of law is good, then law will righteously represent me.
I’ve taken liberty to italicize morals and prescriptions within the premises and conclusion. Also, it’s worth knowing the distinction between these two concepts.
A moral is an arguably subjective determination of what’s considered good or bad, right or wrong, or otherwise. An ethic is based on a moral and serves as a prescriptive rule according to which a person behaves, generally taking the form of a should, must, or ought-type attitude.
Given this understanding, if I declare that the “rule of law is good” and that “I should obey laws of the land,” I’m stating that I’ve already determined a faith-based position, even though this stance has little (if anything) to do with religiosity. As such, it serves as a principle in my life.
Following my principled major premise, I maintain in a minor premise that “law will righteously represent me.” Regarding justification for this belief, one source states, “Political representation is the activity of making citizens ‘present’ in public policy-making processes when political actors act in the best interest of citizens.”
Even though I maintain some of the JW principles with which I was raised (e.g., nonparticipation in politics), I value the idea of political representation for United States (U.S.) citizens. Thus, the conclusion of my syllogistic premises is that “if the rule of law is good, then law will righteously represent me.”
When realism meets idealism
Being that I’m an REBT practitioner, I remain aware that my belief in the rule of law is irrational. At most, this assumption is based in idealism and not necessarily realism.
According to one source, “The ideal world is defined as an idealized society, environment or situation in the mind of an individual or group, pursuing the idea of a state of perfection. On the other hand, the real world refers to the actual situations we experience and face in our lives.”
Idealistically, every U.S. citizen will enjoy the privilege, liberty, or freedom – however one chooses to differentiate between these qualifiers – in a righteously representative manner. Each of us deserves to experience equal representation according to the rule of law.
However, that’s not a realistic expectation. To understand what I mean, one needs look no further than the astonishing treatment by the U.S. judicial system regarding Donald Trump.
Before I proceed any further, I’ll issue an obligatory disclaimer. I don’t vote and never have. Likewise, I don’t plan on ever doing so. Although it may be comforting for some to irrationally believe that their vote matters in the federal U.S. election system, I’m not as idealistic.
Moreover, even if I believed that my vote made a difference, I would refrain from voting. Regarding this matter, I stated in a blogpost entitled Civic Duty:
Voting is merely accepted as a civic duty, simple as. We can agree to disagree. I choose not to vote and others can choose to label me however they like due to this fact.
For the record, I want to be clear. I’m not implying that anyone shouldn’t, mustn’t, or oughtn’t to vote. I’m not the moral arbiter of the universe, nor do I care if a person does or doesn’t vote.
Adding to this disclaimer, it’s worth noting that I maintain no commitment to either Trump or Joe Biden as individuals. Still, I respect the Executive Office of the President and obey laws of the land (for the most part). As such, critiques made herein don’t stem from ideological partisanship.
Now, consider that in a blogpost entitled Bezmenov’s Razor (2023), I stated that “one source speculates, ‘The Democrats are using lawfare against Trump because they can’t beat him fairly.’ I don’t think this observation is beyond the scope of rationality.”
Given this proposal, contemplate the potential ramifications of what one source reports, “Donald J. Trump, the former president and presumptive 2024 Republican nominee, was convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in a case stemming from a payment that silenced a porn star.”
From an idealistic standpoint, I support the notion of justice—the maintenance or administration of what is just (having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason), especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments.
Regarding a realistic perspective, the legal conviction of Trump – one of four criminal cases against him – appears to serve as election interference and the weaponization of law rather than justice. When realism meets idealism in this way, it’s easy for one to self-disturb.
REBT theory uses the ABC model to illustrate how when Activating events (“Actions”) occur and people maintain irrational Beliefs about the events, these unhelpful assumptions – and not the actual occurrences – are what create unpleasant cognitive, emotive, bodily sensation, and behavioral Consequences.
In particular, there are four predominate irrational beliefs which people use: demandingness, awfulizing, low frustration tolerance, and global evaluations. Addressing these, the ABC model incorporates Disputation of unhelpful assumptions in order to explore Effective new beliefs.
Noteworthy, from a psychological standpoint, people disturb themselves using a Belief-Consequence (B-C) connection. Of course, this isn’t to suggest that in the context of the naturalistic or physical world there is no Action-Consequence (A-C) connection.
As an example, if you hit your thumb with a hammer (Action), you’ll likely experience pain (Consequence). Still, if you unhelpfully Believe, “That shouldn’t have happened to me,” then you’ll probably disturb yourself into an angry disposition (Consequence).
The A-C versus B-C distinction is an important one. Now, when Trump is found guilty of 34 felonies by way of novel and questionable legal theories (Action) and person X is outraged (Consequence), this is an improper use of the A-C connection.
Rather, when Trump is found guilty of 34 felonies by way of novel and questionable legal theories (Action) and person X unproductively Believes, “I can’t stand that the rule of law is effectively over,” it’s this unhelpful assumption that leads to outrage (Consequence).
Idealistically, righteous representation of law will be afforded to every U.S. citizen. Irrespective of what one believes should, must, or ought to occur, realistically, justice doesn’t always prevail.
This is stated with the expressed understanding that justice isn’t merely the process of receiving what you, person X, or I want as an outcome. Rather, I’m addressing the “impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments,” which I believe wasn’t present for Trump’s felony convictions.
Perhaps you disagree. Maybe you think my assumption is irrational and that I’ve faithfully subscribed to a belief-based structure. This is an entirely plausible consideration.
In fact, my ability to admit that I may be wrong and that my belief may be irrational is the very essence of an effective new belief. Instead of forming an absolutistic irrational belief, I’m open to and capable of maintaining flexible assumptions.
Therefore, I use the technique of unconditional acceptance (UA) to relieve self-disturbance. This is accomplished through use of unconditional self-acceptance, unconditional other-acceptance, and unconditional life-acceptance.
Ergo, when realism meets idealism and I use flexible beliefs with UA, I helpfully conclude that although I don’t like or love witnessing the direction in which our country appears to be heading, I can tolerate and accept that I have no control and incredibly little influence to change the matter.
Conclusion
Making sense of my former belief in religious doctrine, I understand how one can subscribe to principles which others believe are illogical and unreasonable. Furthermore, I comprehend how faith in a belief ostensibly excuses one from critiques to the contrary.
Additionally, belief in the rule of law serves as a lifelong principle I’ve maintained to this day. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that even this assumption serves as a form of faith-based prescription for how I live my life.
Irrespective of moral and ethical prescriptions, when realism meets idealism, I recognize how easy it is to self-disturb by using irrational beliefs. Therefore, I remain open to use of flexible beliefs and the practice of UA in order to align with and achieve my interests and goals.
Understandably, some people will view this method of rational living as undesirable, cowardly, or even anti-patriotic. The distorted inference of this imagined retort is that I should, must, or ought to openly defy what is plausibly a tyrannical government that persecutes its citizens.
While I sympathize with and maintain rational compassion for some of the views expressed by those who have sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution, much as I did when pledging the sum total of my life in defense of the same, this moment isn’t the time for that solution.
Rather, I will continue (mostly) obeying laws of the land while advocating the reduction of self-disturbance through promotion of rational living techniques. Truly, control over myself is all I have – and to a limited degree at that.
The same is true for you. We may not appreciate how little influence we have in life, though we can build resilience while practicing high frustration tolerance through use of REBT… for now. If you’d like to know more about how to stop disturbing yourself, I’m here to help.
If you’re looking for a provider who works to help you understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life—helping you to sharpen your critical thinking skills, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.
As a psychotherapist, I’m pleased to help people with an assortment of issues ranging from anger (hostility, rage, and aggression) to relational issues, adjustment matters, trauma experience, justice involvement, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, and other mood or personality-related matters.
At Hollings Therapy, LLC, serving all of Texas, I aim to treat clients with dignity and respect while offering a multi-lensed approach to the practice of psychotherapy and life coaching. My mission includes: Prioritizing the cognitive and emotive needs of clients, an overall reduction in client suffering, and supporting sustainable growth for the clients I serve. Rather than simply helping you to feel better, I want to help you get better!
Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW
References:
Bittner, S. (2024, April 25). Donald Trumps sits in court. He is looking at the jury […] [Image]. Playground. Retrieved from https://playground.com/post/donald-trumps-sits-in-court-he-is-looking-at-the-jury-he-i-clvfo3i6k02gcs601y26frun0
Bromwich, J. E. and Protess, B. (2024, May 30). Trump guilty on all counts in hush-money case. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/05/30/nyregion/trump-trial-verdict
Feng, Y. (n.d.). What is your ideal world? Ars Electronica. Retrieved from https://ars.electronica.art/who-owns-the-truth/en/what-is-your-ideal-world/
Hollings, D. (2023, December 20). Bezmenov’s razor. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/bezmenov-s-razor
Hollings, D. (2022, May 17). Circle of concern. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/circle-of-concern
Hollings, D. (2022, November 13). Civic duty. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/civic-duty
Hollings, D. (2022, October 31). Demandingness. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/demandingness
Hollings, D. (2022, October 5). Description vs. prescription. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/description-vs-prescription
Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer
Hollings, D. (2024, March 28). Distorted inferences. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/distorted-inferences
Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Fair use. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fair-use
Hollings, D. (2024, April 2). Four major irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/four-major-irrational-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better
Hollings, D. (2023, September 13). Global evaluations. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/global-evaluations
Hollings, D. (2024, February 24). High frustration tolerance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/high-frustration-tolerance
Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/
Hollings, D. (2024, January 2). Interests and goals. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/interests-and-goals
Hollings, D. (2023, May 18). Irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/irrational-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2022, November 10). Labeling. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/labeling
Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching
Hollings, D. (2022, December 9). Like it, love it, accept it. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/like-it-love-it-accept-it
Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason
Hollings, D. (2022, December 2). Low frustration tolerance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/low-frustration-tolerance
Hollings, D. (2024, April 9). Moral arbiter. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/moral-arbiter
Hollings, D. (2023, October 2). Morals and ethics. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/morals-and-ethics
Hollings, D. (2024, April 22). On disputing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-disputing
Hollings, D. (2022, October 22). On empathy. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-empathy
Hollings, D. (2023, April 24). On truth. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-truth
Hollings, D. (2023, June 3). Perfect is the enemy of good. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/perfect-is-the-enemy-of-good
Hollings, D. (2022, November 7). Personal ownership. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/personal-ownership
Hollings, D. (2024, May 26). Principles. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/principles
Hollings, D. (2022, March 24). Rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT). Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-emotive-behavior-therapy-rebt
Hollings, D. (2024, May 15). Rational living. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-living
Hollings, D. (2024, May 8). Resilience. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/resilience
Hollings, D. (2024, January 4). Rigid vs. rigorous. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rigid-vs-rigorous
Hollings, D. (2022, November 1). Self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-disturbance
Hollings, D. (2024, April 21). Sensation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/sensation
Hollings, D. (2022, October 7). Should, must, and ought. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/should-must-and-ought
Hollings, D. (2024, April 9). Shoulding at the supermarket. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/shoulding-at-the-supermarket
Hollings, D. (2024, April 21). Stoicism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/stoicism
Hollings, D. (2023, October 17). Syllogism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/syllogism
Hollings, D. (2022, November 9). The ABC model. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-abc-model
Hollings, D. (2022, December 23). The A-C connection. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-a-c-connection
Hollings, D. (2022, December 25). The B-C connection. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-b-c-connection
Hollings, D. (2023, August 6). The science. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-science
Hollings, D. (2023, February 16). Tna. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/tna
Hollings, D. (2022, November 15). To don a hat. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/to-don-a-hat
Hollings, D. (2022, July 11). Unconditional acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-acceptance
Hollings, D. (2023, March 11). Unconditional life-acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-life-acceptance
Hollings, D. (2023, February 25). Unconditional other-acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-other-acceptance
Hollings, D. (2023, March 1). Unconditional self-acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-self-acceptance
Hollings, D. (2023, October 22). Unfalsifiability. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unfalsifiability
Jehovah’s Witnesses. (n.d.). Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses maintain political neutrality? Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. Retrieved from https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/political-neutrality/
Norf Man. (2020, November 9). Simple as. Urban Dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=simple%20as
Stefanik, E. (2023, December 5). The Democrats are using lawfare against Trump because they can’t beat him fairly. Newsweek. Retrieved from https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-are-using-lawfare-against-trump-because-they-cant-beat-him-fairly-opinion-1849670
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Christian Broadcasting Network. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Broadcasting_Network
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Donald Trump. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Joe Biden. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Lawfare. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawfare
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Political representation. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_(politics)
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Rule of law. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
Wikipedia. (n.d.). The 700 Club. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_700_Club
Comments