Thursday, May 13, 2010


Today's world has left little to imagine when it comes to the evil that man is capable of, but the outrage I felt when I heard that a 13 story mosque was to be built upon the soil that captured American blood, was incommensurable! The mosque will not only be built upon the soil where American lost their lives, but also the mark of the 10 year anniversary, September 11, 2011!

How can any Muslim, no matter their stripe, think that building a sacred shrine to Allah on top of an American symbol of tragedy, be tolerable, much less acceptable? Is this the point? Is building such a shrine dedicated to Islam's God in the very place that symbolized to their society horrendous idolatry; the American capitalistic system? I just wonder.

How is it that those calling for humane treatment and tolerance can make excuses for such abuse and insensitivity toward our losses? Imagine if you had lost a loved one in a towering inferno that day, and all because of love for God!

I heard the analogy of Germans building a shrine at the site of Auschwitz, or the Japanese at the sit of Pearl Harbor. Neither the Germans or the Japanese would have considered such an action.

Toleration cannot be the medicine for such intolerant attitudes, ideology, and action. Anyone that thinks that there can be negotiation with those that have such beliefs is deluded.

Whenever there is belief that one has a "higher understanding" or "higher call", etc. then, one is bent toward destroying or "converting" those who are "lesser". These will not stop their behavior because of reason. In fact, the very fact of persecution can be a sanction to their "election". Their understanding of life is built upon faith. This is why faith is so dangerous.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Choices Are Necessary for Moral Development

There is out-rage on the radio and T.V. concerning Michele Obama's new obesity agenda. Some believe that government has "no right" to suggest or limit choices, even if they are detrimental to health. Others believe that unless government intervenes, then all of us will "pay the costs" of unwise choices of others. Which is more important?

Those that believe that government must intervene must have some understanding of their priorities. Michele's has chosen health issues. Every "wife-in-chief" has had some form of social concern that she has undertaken, but Michele's concern has become a "mandate" for all of us. Instead of a moral example, this administration seeks to limit personal decision making or punish or impugne those choices that are "not good for societal flourishing". Society comes first, not individual choice and value.

Just recently, it was discussed that those fast food resturants that give a "prize" to children in their "Happy Meals" should only put the prize in the healthy choice. Government is playing the parent in these situations. Is this the place of government?

Those that argue that without government intervention, then American obesity will rise, as it has over the last decade. Parents have seemed to be absent or uncaring of these values for their children. Health care costs will increase due to the diseases associated with obesity and the rest of society will suffer due to the costs to healthcare. Children have also suffered and will continue to suffer unless government intervenes.

Although I agree that we should be concerned about health and healthcare costs, why hasn't the social norm of American "thinness" made its impact on American choice and value? Would government intervention deter those that are determined to eat unhealthy food? Would the "black market" for unhealthy food arise if givernment regulates our choices? Should corporations be limited and not individuals?

It seems that corporations are in bed with the adminstration, so that the individual will have no re-course but "be forced" to co-operate with such intrusions into the American "way of life".
Is this a way for government to "own" all of us, because of government's "concern", especially in light of the fact that government must begin to think about the costs of healthcare, since it has implemented its healthcare "plan". Isn't a government healthcare plan a way for "leaders" to control more and more of our personal choices and values, as well as our money and where it goes? Where is liberty, then?

Isn't the real reason why healthcare and all other choices are being defined by laws, plans or take-overs by governmnet, really about power and control over our liberties? One by one we are loosing our liberty for "the common good", or for other "noble reasons" that are defined by those over us. No longer is there a "moral majority", but a devious elite aristocracy that limits information to the very people that it is supposed to be responsible to. Where is accountability of the governmen to the people? Now, it seems that the people are accountable to the government!

Government was intended to be self-governance, which means that the individual must determine what values he holds to be the most important for himself, within the boundaries of law. Without the liberty to choose what one values most, isn't government acting "immorally" by asserting their power and limiting human choice, which is the basis of morality itself?

Limiting choice will certainly enslave all of us, as those that believe that the "ends justifies the means" will rationalize anything to get their way. And they will be self satisfied in our suffering because is serves out what they deem as "equal justice" in the larger scale of things.

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Social Construction and Social Identity

All cultures in the human and animal "kingdoms" seem to intuitively "know" that social structures form their young. These social influencing elements in the human realm are family, friends, and ethnic tribe.

Social construction is the process of internalizing the social norms, and values in a certain culture. These norms, and values help the young to frame their understanding of the world. Identity is not fully formed in such environments, because of the young's dependent stage of development. The young need the environment to further the internalization process.

In free societies, the family is not stingently defined by outside sources, other than the values of those entering into that commitment. But, religious cultures deem it necessary to define such structures in a uniform way.

The dissolution of such stringent structures has led to much debate about whether it has brought value to society in general. Have such "flexible norms" produced young that have no conscience or regard for society as a value? Has it led to the demise of "civil society" because the young tend to act out of their resistance to what they deem to be oppressive? Or has society "grown" in its understanding of the human need for flexible norms?

The young need nurture. This fact is not debated, but there does come a time when the young must outgrow and think for themselves what is important and of value. Does strict upbringing leave room for promoting intellectural growth? Or does it produce guilt, anxiety, and fear whenever such boundaries are ignored, dissolved, or re-defined? Where is the responsibility of the parent, and teacher/professor?

The child must develop beyond helpless dependence, not only in the physical areas of his life, but also his personal areas. This is the formation of forming the child in his own image and not to a source outside of himself. And when the young adult finds that he has formed and thought out his own values, then he will then be able to commit to a social group, not because of "felt need", but because of his own chosen values.