Hope vs Faith

I cant get it out of my mind. The obama campaign and the Bill Clinton campaign for the presidency was all about hope. having hope. communicating hope. Give hope to the american people. It seems to me that this so called hope is a mere bauble to the precious act of faith. I would rather a president or anyone for that matter be about Faith. Having faith. Communicating faith. The meaning of faith as expound in fear and trembling that I referenced previously consumes my thoughts. So in the way I have to understand faith, I would like to compare it to hope.

Hope is easy. Faith is difficult.

Hope makes no demands on the hoper calls for no sacrifice or silence. Hope requires speech to spread the hope.

Faith makes demands and asks for sacrifice. Faith requires silence.

Hope is safe Faith is dangerous.

Hope is passive Faith is active

Hope can be given Faith springs from within. It cannot be given

Hope is affirmation of status quo(that it is all right ie ethical or everything can be ethical) Faith is affirmation despite of the status quo(ie taking your son to be murdered)

Hope is leader centric Faith is multitude or one centric

Hope is ethical universal Faith is subjugation of ethical and universal to a higher principle

it would take a pitiful excuse for an human being to hope for the unethical.

Hope is public Faith is private

Hope is the aspiration of the adherence to the universal.

Hope is the guilty is punished Faith is the guilty is redeemed in the end. the "sin" or misdeed is wiped out. Salvation seems to be related to this. You have faith that the sin or misdeed as Abraham would have done would be "undone" IE he would get Isaac back the sinner would cleansed as if the sin never happened. He would get his "Isaac" back.

Clinton said he was a man from hope. What we need is not a man from hope, But the multitude to realize their meaningful existence comes from a place called Faith.

Hope is vacuous /does not give meaning or purpose nor direction Faith is meaningful purpose driven.

Hope is unnecessary for human life to be worth living. While Faith for a life worth living is absolutely necessary.

The confused Disabilities rights movement

The disabilities rights movement as such is a confused point of view. It was not well thought out. In fact It is inconsistent.
It confuses the fact of being disabled or different with the way to live one's life or act as being someone others would classify as disabled.
It muddies the water as someone who should desire to be more like others or even recognize their difference or a difference of theirs as a possible disadvantage with their attitude about themselves and their place in the world. It also makes this artificial and damaging absolute distinction between the disabled and the so called normal. We all live in the confines of the facticity of our existence.
The worst part of the whole issue of disability and the word is that it gives some the license to think themselves better than those with that label that really have no business thinking themselves better than anyone.
This disabilities movement while inducing people to take pride in who they are in spite of or because of their disabilities has a horrible side effect. This side effect of wallowing in their disability even retaining their disabilities in the face of a cure or minimalization. A good example is deaf people. They are wrong not to want to hear. By virtue of not hearing they are deaf. But to be on the spectrum they are not by its very nature alone or friendless. Minimalization does not apply.

If you are in a wheelchair and you dont desire to walk or deaf to hear or an amputee and dont wish for your limb back, you are a fool or someone who has deceived themselves to the point reality is a distant memory. A house cat is a not a disabled lion. But a lion that is blind or crippled is disabled and its only salvation it minimalization or erasure of its condition to be like the standard lion. A house cat that is dressed up to look like a lion is costumed boofonery.

The notion of a social disability is abused to a great extent nowadays. It used to put all differences and anyone who is outside the mainstream of society as a disable person.

The disability right movement is no civil rights movement. It a movement of muddled thinkers and addled brains.

I think an existentialist view of disability is far more appealing. The model of Sisyphus by Albert Camus is one good example. It is important to get beyond this disabled v non-disabled. The distinction in many cases is not clear. I have seen those who advocate prenatal tests to prevent unfortunate people being born or to suffer. Really need to take a hard look at themselves if they would really pass muster in the quest for a perfect world.