This morning I have been thinking about liberty, and how thankful I am that I live in a free society. Here are some quotes, from philosophers, politicians, Christians, and journalists that value democracy and uphold liberty of conscience.
Anna Garlin Spencer:
The earth is ready, the time is ripe, for the authoritative expression of the feminine as well as the masculine interpretation of that common social consensus which is slowly writing justice in the State and fraternity in the social order.
Aristotle:
If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.
Barry Goldwater:
Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed.
-->C. S. Lewis:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Dorothy Thompson:
Of all forms of government and society, those of free men and women are in many respects the most brittle. They give the fullest freedom for activities of private persons and groups who often identify their own interests, essentially selfish, with the general welfare.
Individuals must protect the liberty of the other, if they want to protect it for themselves. And I don't believe that some think that this is reasonable, because they think that how they find "life" is how everyone finds it. Their understanding should be everyone's, because it is ultimately true. Arrogance is borne on the heels of ignorance, or power and both must be tempered by "education".
This morning there was a cartoon of an elephant and donkey that were looking up to see "tea bags" raining from the sky! I herald the effort of the tea parties, as I think this is the only way to win the war against tyranny. We must educate ourselves about our historical roots and determine that we will resist tyranny. Let's hope that the means that our Founders "put in place" are still enforceable and that there are enough people who care and have the power to use those means!
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Dominion and Stewardship
Christians believe in the "creation mandate". These believe that since God created all that is, humans are responsible to be responsible. It is no less true for the scientific materialists. These also believe that one must dominate and steward the earth's resources. Therefore, there has been an alliance of purpose, so that the world, or globalized efforts will "come into being". But, is 'one purpose' the best way or best option among options of "leading the world"?
Science in the West has been useful to bring about a better way of life, in quality to health, and comfort of lifestyle. We believe that science gives us opportunities to explore and discover yet to be known facts about our physical environment, so the the earth can be its best in serving mankind's needs.
Christians, and other faiths, also believe that the earth is of value to protect. Therefore, the environmental movement, from global warming to recycling has impacted the globe, whether believer or unbeliever. "Avatar" is only one amongst many sci fi movies that feature American interests in science, environment and "mystery" (the yet to be discovered).
"One world" can come about through such goals and visions of stewardship and dominion. But, in our world of global conflict, ideological differences, is it going to bring about "the Kingdom of God", "peace on earth", or "Utopian dreams"?
With limited resources, and within limited means of bettering the world, how are we to envision that all will have equal? or live under equal protections of "law and order"? Is duplicity a means to that end? And what of those that are duped under such means? What is the real purpose of the law?
It becomes clearer as the West has opened its doors and heart to those "without", whether national identity or social and economic means, that the world is much too complex to hope for "utopian ideals". Laws define the boundaries around national identity. And laws conflict when ideology conflicts. This is why some in the West are frustrated by Islam's demand for special consideration of their laws. The U.N. has acquiesed. And the West is suffering under what to do with Shairi'a.
This is not to say that those that have "hearts of gold" or seek to "sainthood" should not seek to do good, waiting for a reward later, or whether they just don't "miss" the funds they send because they have so much anyway.
I just oppose those who want their visions to be everyone's. Stewardship and dominion must be held, defined and expressed within different value systems. Stewardship may mean for those without the ability to give to the poor, that they don't buy the "Coke", so they can afford the formula for the baby at home. And for those who have so much, well, they are free to give as their hearts desire, because they won't miss it anyway.
Dominion of the earth and its "goods" is a way of viewing leadership in honing the earth's resources to better mankind. Scientists have the ability to dominate the earth in the way their specific expertise designs. But the personal commitments, and values of individual scientists, will determine how that will be lived out in their lives. There is no "one way of being in the world". It is a matter of commitment, choice, and value. And it is a matter of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Science in the West has been useful to bring about a better way of life, in quality to health, and comfort of lifestyle. We believe that science gives us opportunities to explore and discover yet to be known facts about our physical environment, so the the earth can be its best in serving mankind's needs.
Christians, and other faiths, also believe that the earth is of value to protect. Therefore, the environmental movement, from global warming to recycling has impacted the globe, whether believer or unbeliever. "Avatar" is only one amongst many sci fi movies that feature American interests in science, environment and "mystery" (the yet to be discovered).
"One world" can come about through such goals and visions of stewardship and dominion. But, in our world of global conflict, ideological differences, is it going to bring about "the Kingdom of God", "peace on earth", or "Utopian dreams"?
With limited resources, and within limited means of bettering the world, how are we to envision that all will have equal? or live under equal protections of "law and order"? Is duplicity a means to that end? And what of those that are duped under such means? What is the real purpose of the law?
It becomes clearer as the West has opened its doors and heart to those "without", whether national identity or social and economic means, that the world is much too complex to hope for "utopian ideals". Laws define the boundaries around national identity. And laws conflict when ideology conflicts. This is why some in the West are frustrated by Islam's demand for special consideration of their laws. The U.N. has acquiesed. And the West is suffering under what to do with Shairi'a.
This is not to say that those that have "hearts of gold" or seek to "sainthood" should not seek to do good, waiting for a reward later, or whether they just don't "miss" the funds they send because they have so much anyway.
I just oppose those who want their visions to be everyone's. Stewardship and dominion must be held, defined and expressed within different value systems. Stewardship may mean for those without the ability to give to the poor, that they don't buy the "Coke", so they can afford the formula for the baby at home. And for those who have so much, well, they are free to give as their hearts desire, because they won't miss it anyway.
Dominion of the earth and its "goods" is a way of viewing leadership in honing the earth's resources to better mankind. Scientists have the ability to dominate the earth in the way their specific expertise designs. But the personal commitments, and values of individual scientists, will determine how that will be lived out in their lives. There is no "one way of being in the world". It is a matter of commitment, choice, and value. And it is a matter of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
For Those Who Choose to Believe...
Humans are created in the "image of God", or so the believing community affirms. Therefore, humans are special, or distinct from other forms of life. Human life is to be respected. Therefore, those who choose to believe must affirm that humans cannot be manipulated, controlled, oppressed, or "trained" as animals.
In the Old Testament, there is a story about a man who attempted to "steady the ark of the covenant". His intentions were well-meaning, as he didn't want the ark of the covenant to "fall to the ground" and defile it. But, what happened to him struck fear in the heart of others as to the seriousness of "touching the ark of the covenant" for any reason, well intentioned or not.
The Ark of the Covenant was symbolic of the Presence and Law of God. In the New Testament, it is understood to be "the human being" who is created in God's image that is the "ark of the Covenant".
Other communal understandings is "the Church", as the "Ark of the Covenant". The problem with this view is the problem of any group type form. But, in this sense, the Church is a cult. A cult or sectarian faiths have certain irrational beliefs that defend their practices. These are symbolized in communion, marriage, baptism and other sacraments. These symbolize "the community" as ancient cultures understood themselves in "communal ways".
Enlightenment via the Reformation has understood the importance of the individual, not the communal. Some have thought that this is what has undermined America's civil responsibilities. But, I believe that what the individual child is taught and becomes is based in the family. Family is understood by both pyschological and sociological science and faith communities as a formative community. Therefore, the individual is formed in the framework of care, concern and commitment.
Those who choose to believe will not presume or assume upon the community nor the individuals within those communities.
In the Old Testament, there is a story about a man who attempted to "steady the ark of the covenant". His intentions were well-meaning, as he didn't want the ark of the covenant to "fall to the ground" and defile it. But, what happened to him struck fear in the heart of others as to the seriousness of "touching the ark of the covenant" for any reason, well intentioned or not.
The Ark of the Covenant was symbolic of the Presence and Law of God. In the New Testament, it is understood to be "the human being" who is created in God's image that is the "ark of the Covenant".
Other communal understandings is "the Church", as the "Ark of the Covenant". The problem with this view is the problem of any group type form. But, in this sense, the Church is a cult. A cult or sectarian faiths have certain irrational beliefs that defend their practices. These are symbolized in communion, marriage, baptism and other sacraments. These symbolize "the community" as ancient cultures understood themselves in "communal ways".
Enlightenment via the Reformation has understood the importance of the individual, not the communal. Some have thought that this is what has undermined America's civil responsibilities. But, I believe that what the individual child is taught and becomes is based in the family. Family is understood by both pyschological and sociological science and faith communities as a formative community. Therefore, the individual is formed in the framework of care, concern and commitment.
Those who choose to believe will not presume or assume upon the community nor the individuals within those communities.
What is Wrong with Providence?
Providence has been understood to be "God's rule" or "over-ruling" of life in all its aspects. But, what is wrong with this view and providence?
Modern man does not understand 'all that is" as predestined, or providential, but contingent and a "possiblity" or chance. Parallel universes, where choice and contingency intermingle to form what is. That is what natural scientists and human scientists seek to disentangle. But, the more they seek to disentangle the "mystery", the more mysterious it seems to get.
All people in free societies have rights to opportunity, because free societies do not limit the individual. The disagreement happens in how the opportunity is to be understood. Are human themselves to create their own opportunity? This is the view of the "Protestant work ethic", where hard work, willpower and determination will result in success. These believe that innovation is the way of American dreams and possiblities.
The other side views the limitations to opportunity. Those born in environments that do not promote the necessary ingredients to be a 'success" are viewed as society's responsibility. Responsible people seek to take responsibility for those who cannot form their own life for success. This view seeks to prosper the whole by underwriting the "part". Society takes up the slack where individuals and families have failed.
These two views define for the most part, though simplistically, how our two party system views "life", people, value, and choice.
Providence doesn't have much to do with one's environment of birth, whether healthy and enriching, or unhealthy and demeaning.
Modern man does not understand 'all that is" as predestined, or providential, but contingent and a "possiblity" or chance. Parallel universes, where choice and contingency intermingle to form what is. That is what natural scientists and human scientists seek to disentangle. But, the more they seek to disentangle the "mystery", the more mysterious it seems to get.
All people in free societies have rights to opportunity, because free societies do not limit the individual. The disagreement happens in how the opportunity is to be understood. Are human themselves to create their own opportunity? This is the view of the "Protestant work ethic", where hard work, willpower and determination will result in success. These believe that innovation is the way of American dreams and possiblities.
The other side views the limitations to opportunity. Those born in environments that do not promote the necessary ingredients to be a 'success" are viewed as society's responsibility. Responsible people seek to take responsibility for those who cannot form their own life for success. This view seeks to prosper the whole by underwriting the "part". Society takes up the slack where individuals and families have failed.
These two views define for the most part, though simplistically, how our two party system views "life", people, value, and choice.
Providence doesn't have much to do with one's environment of birth, whether healthy and enriching, or unhealthy and demeaning.
What is Wrong With "Covenant"
On another blog, I read this morning where arranged marriages could be a way to "form" intimacy. The one response was affirming of this type of "legal commitment". But, I find there are some problems with this sort of "covenant".
"Covenant" is a term that was useful in biblical times to transmit a way of understanding relationships. Blood covenants were an exchange or co-mingling of blood to symbolize and exchange of life. One would take on the other's enemies, as the "other"'s life became one's own. This was the traditional understanding of marriage. It was a mutual exhange and co-mingling of "life for life". The two became one.
Scholars have disagreed as to whether the covenant (suzerain) was unilateral or mutual. Covenant theologians understood the covenant to be undertaken by God, as God was the only one who could fulfull his own demands (basing their understanding of the perfections of God). This was where predestination came into the understanding of "bibilical theology". Reformed believers believed that God predestined some to respond to his "understaking in the covenant", while others believed in various forms of "foreknowledge".
In the Old Testament one was allowed to take the life of the other, if the other had taken life. This was the basis of justice, an eye for an eye. "An eye for an eye" limited justice to equal measure, because of human's propensity to revenge. Revenge annihilates the other, instead of training the other to limit themself.
Covenant in the New Testament meant that what was considered to be an outside demand, became an inside desire. Evangelicals, or fundamentalists would believe that one would need a "new heart" to do what was demanded "under law". Ususally, these understood the "new heart" to come about by a "re-birth" or "born again" experience. Others believed that one was "born into" the family of God by baptism, or communion of life. Holiness people understood this to be "entire sanctification". One obeyed not from duty, but desire.
But, the Enlightenment undermined the view of covenant. Humans were no longer understood to be pawns under God, King or government, but "self". Holiness people understood this "discipline" to be the "fruit of the Spirit". Rationalists understood it to be discipline of habit. All understood it to be the result of a free choice.
The scientific disciplines were developing during the "modern age" where sociology and psychology were in their beginning stages of understanding human behavior, just as the natural sciences were the result of understanding "order in the universe".
Man was no longer a puppet under God, but understood to be "created in God's image". What does that mean, except that man is created to create, decide and choose for himself?
Liberty became the watchword of the Enlightenment, not covenant. Man was a free moral agent.
Today, the human sciences are grappling again with what it means to be human. Contingency has to be considered along with individual choice. Neuroscience has to be considered alongside psychological and sociological science. No longer is man understood in one demensional ways, as a wholistic view is sought.
The modern era brought us the disciplines we use to continue to understand and form what we will know tomorrow about man, society, and his environment.
"Covenant" is a term that was useful in biblical times to transmit a way of understanding relationships. Blood covenants were an exchange or co-mingling of blood to symbolize and exchange of life. One would take on the other's enemies, as the "other"'s life became one's own. This was the traditional understanding of marriage. It was a mutual exhange and co-mingling of "life for life". The two became one.
Scholars have disagreed as to whether the covenant (suzerain) was unilateral or mutual. Covenant theologians understood the covenant to be undertaken by God, as God was the only one who could fulfull his own demands (basing their understanding of the perfections of God). This was where predestination came into the understanding of "bibilical theology". Reformed believers believed that God predestined some to respond to his "understaking in the covenant", while others believed in various forms of "foreknowledge".
In the Old Testament one was allowed to take the life of the other, if the other had taken life. This was the basis of justice, an eye for an eye. "An eye for an eye" limited justice to equal measure, because of human's propensity to revenge. Revenge annihilates the other, instead of training the other to limit themself.
Covenant in the New Testament meant that what was considered to be an outside demand, became an inside desire. Evangelicals, or fundamentalists would believe that one would need a "new heart" to do what was demanded "under law". Ususally, these understood the "new heart" to come about by a "re-birth" or "born again" experience. Others believed that one was "born into" the family of God by baptism, or communion of life. Holiness people understood this to be "entire sanctification". One obeyed not from duty, but desire.
But, the Enlightenment undermined the view of covenant. Humans were no longer understood to be pawns under God, King or government, but "self". Holiness people understood this "discipline" to be the "fruit of the Spirit". Rationalists understood it to be discipline of habit. All understood it to be the result of a free choice.
The scientific disciplines were developing during the "modern age" where sociology and psychology were in their beginning stages of understanding human behavior, just as the natural sciences were the result of understanding "order in the universe".
Man was no longer a puppet under God, but understood to be "created in God's image". What does that mean, except that man is created to create, decide and choose for himself?
Liberty became the watchword of the Enlightenment, not covenant. Man was a free moral agent.
Today, the human sciences are grappling again with what it means to be human. Contingency has to be considered along with individual choice. Neuroscience has to be considered alongside psychological and sociological science. No longer is man understood in one demensional ways, as a wholistic view is sought.
The modern era brought us the disciplines we use to continue to understand and form what we will know tomorrow about man, society, and his environment.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Art, As Expression and Free Speech
Artists are known to be a "little different". Perhaps, this is a stereotype, but it seems that artists do "see" things differently, "feel" things deeply, and express things vividly.
All art is a mixture of culture, history, and artist. This is why art is so "fun". Art reveals values, and the philosophy that forms the culture, as well as expresses something about the artist himself. Art is of value for itself because it reveals what is experienced in the present and the past throught the artist's eyes.
So, in thinking this morning about color and how to arrange the apartment and its furniture, I also thought about free speech, I realized that art is speech and art is expression. So, art is a form of "free speech" in societies. The question is: where are the lines in regards to art? Should there be lines about what is appropriate art? Does art form culture or is art a reflection of culture?
These questions are like asking the nurture/nature questions. Questions like these can never really be answered fully, as they are so intertwined. Whenever we ask such questions, then we ask about beginnings. What forms society and its values and meaning? I think many great artists are never really accepted by the social norm of their day, because they see "ahead" or understand principles of universialtiy that may not be reflected in a certain cultural time frame.
In the social frame these are social reformers, and in the humanities frame, these are the artists of literature, and art in its various forms. Art speaks to the heart before the head can get in the way. Because art reflects the "human" in a way that other things can't.
Just for example, my husband told me that he felt the apartment was "cold". When I told a couple of other people what he said, they responded that "he needed to turn up the heat". Their answer was an answer of science. But, what Wim really meant was that the apartment did not have "my decorator's stamp" on it. He felt an emotional coldness, because I don't like white walls. And he missed some of my personal taste in the apartment. The "flavor" of art, cannot be expressed by the chemicals that make up the paint.
All art is a mixture of culture, history, and artist. This is why art is so "fun". Art reveals values, and the philosophy that forms the culture, as well as expresses something about the artist himself. Art is of value for itself because it reveals what is experienced in the present and the past throught the artist's eyes.
So, in thinking this morning about color and how to arrange the apartment and its furniture, I also thought about free speech, I realized that art is speech and art is expression. So, art is a form of "free speech" in societies. The question is: where are the lines in regards to art? Should there be lines about what is appropriate art? Does art form culture or is art a reflection of culture?
These questions are like asking the nurture/nature questions. Questions like these can never really be answered fully, as they are so intertwined. Whenever we ask such questions, then we ask about beginnings. What forms society and its values and meaning? I think many great artists are never really accepted by the social norm of their day, because they see "ahead" or understand principles of universialtiy that may not be reflected in a certain cultural time frame.
In the social frame these are social reformers, and in the humanities frame, these are the artists of literature, and art in its various forms. Art speaks to the heart before the head can get in the way. Because art reflects the "human" in a way that other things can't.
Just for example, my husband told me that he felt the apartment was "cold". When I told a couple of other people what he said, they responded that "he needed to turn up the heat". Their answer was an answer of science. But, what Wim really meant was that the apartment did not have "my decorator's stamp" on it. He felt an emotional coldness, because I don't like white walls. And he missed some of my personal taste in the apartment. The "flavor" of art, cannot be expressed by the chemicals that make up the paint.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Amusement About Augustine...
Today I remembered a blog I read yesterday and couldn't help but think that it was amusing. The blogger said that Augustine had suggested that God's reason for creating man's nipples was for aesthetic reasons. Isn't that funny?
On the other hand, or seriously, Augustine must have felt he needed to defend everything and somehow give God the credit for its reason for being. Men's nipples? No real purpose, other than they "look good"? But, that is okay. The world is as beautiful, as it is baffling,
That is really " good news" if you find that "art", music, beauty, and other "useless" creations are really important as pointers to and of beauty. Beauty resonates in the heart of man, as something that is from "another" category, than useful. And that category has a lot to do with what is NOT, but what humans "know" by nature. What is the meaning of beauty?
On the other hand, or seriously, Augustine must have felt he needed to defend everything and somehow give God the credit for its reason for being. Men's nipples? No real purpose, other than they "look good"? But, that is okay. The world is as beautiful, as it is baffling,
That is really " good news" if you find that "art", music, beauty, and other "useless" creations are really important as pointers to and of beauty. Beauty resonates in the heart of man, as something that is from "another" category, than useful. And that category has a lot to do with what is NOT, but what humans "know" by nature. What is the meaning of beauty?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
