tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30146619728450145302024-03-07T20:54:38.066-08:00Angie's PointA re-thinking of traditional faith.Angie Van De Merwehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comBlogger931125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3014661972845014530.post-28334968331680898162012-10-31T07:41:00.000-07:002012-10-31T07:41:15.004-07:00Personal OpinionSome things in life are a matter of personal opinion, at least in free societies. This is where I believe "faith claims" belong. "Faith claims" are a matter of choice, not a matter of determination. One's "cultural heritage" is a matter of determination, but free societies allow for development beyond "cultural determination" which is found within one's family of origin.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The Church, though, survives on "cultural determination", because of their belief in "God". A particular view must be affirmed for there to be "social cohesion" within a particular denomination. Such are Church doctrines which prescribe differences of understanding "faith". </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I do not believe that anyone has the right to usurp a person's personal values by force, or emotional blackmail. That is my personal opinion and my right as an American citizen.<br /><div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
Angie Van De Merwehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3014661972845014530.post-69123767767374037122012-10-29T06:21:00.001-07:002012-10-29T06:21:57.509-07:00"Human Development" Humans develop within communities or contexts, which can affect how the future is understood or experienced by a particular individual. Humans in American society are free to associate with a particular community for specified reasons once they become of age. Even "family" is a chosen value in our society, as family is formed by consent and not by force or determination.<br />
<br />
Because humans are dependent on the community of "family", when they are young, it is important that family meet the child's needs. Children will develop regardless of "family dynamics", but what they will learn from their experiences in family will not "die" easily, as family is the first teacher of "what is to be expected" from the world. Trust that one's basic needs will be met is pivotal in a child's sense of security. And security is the basis of expectation or hope for the child. Children learn many "lessons" from their parents, and most of these are not "formal" lessons.<br />
<br />
Good parenting seeks to not only attend to the physical needs of the child, but the emotional needs of the child. A good parent does super-impose their preferred interests upon the child, if the child shows an interest in other things. The "good parent" is attuned to "listen" and watch for signs of the child's innate gifts and give the child opportunities to develop and associate with those with similar interests.<br />
<br />
Teachers are also important in human development, as teachers give the child basic foundations to function within society. And as the child grows toward adulthood, more and more specification of personal interests are developed, unless these interests have been stunted by "fundamentalist parenting".<br />
<br />
I find that "faith" is something one outgrows, as one becomes a self responsible adult. Adults in our society are not to be dependent, but independently secure about what they value, and where they want to put forth their efforts in society. Doesn't independence and self responsibility bring about societal flourishing? <br />
<br />
Unfortunately, those that want to control others do so with promises of security. And those that for one reason or another feel "lost" usually respond to such appeals to human emotion, but at a great cost. The costs is the fundamental right to choose life, liberty and one's own pursuit of happiness (property).<br />
<br />
Angie Van De Merwehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3014661972845014530.post-16488877810458995262012-10-28T16:01:00.001-07:002012-10-28T16:01:50.011-07:00Where Are You on the Spectrum of "Faith"? Human development seems to follow a certain path intellectually, morally, and as to faith. And I have come up with what I think are ways that I can easily grasp or categorize people as to their views and commitments about "faith".<br />
<br />
The categories I have been considering are:<br />
<br />
1) Secular Protestant Faith- This is a "secular faith", as faith is only a symbol of something else, that is important to the person themselves, but does not have to be. This kind of faith is an atheistic faith, but could choose to attend church as a social organization for community service and personal associations. Government is self government within any kind of government, though a Constitutional Republic would be considered the best environment to develop this faith intellectually, as it allows for free thought and free expression apart from "faith communities" and it allows for mutual contractual social arrangements.<br />
<br />
2.) Secular Catholic Faith- This faith is a faith that believes in the institution of the Church as complimentary to the institution of Government. Church has a function within society, as to human development. Human Development grows best within communities and grows within broader and broader spectrum of the world (family, church, school, local community, state concerns).<br />
<br />
3.) Natural Protestant Faith- A belief that the natural world grants inalienable rights to individuals via a benevolent "power". Men have the right and power to create society/government and investigate and create within the natural world. This is the faith of the Declaration of Independence and the Founding Fathers. Agnosticism or Deism describes this faith.<br />
<br />
4.) Natural Catholic Faith- A belief in a Benevolent God that has created a Moral Order that is established apart from human creation. Humans have a duty to establish the moral order of government so that man can develop in the right environment. Family is the epitome of the natural order, while government is "God's authority on earth".<br />
<br />
5.) Supernatural Protestant Faith- Faith is individualized such that one can have personal faith/relationship with "a personal God" (the supernatural realm). God consciousness is sought through prayer, meditation and communion. Faith precedes and supersedes community, as proof of true and growing faith.<br />
<br />
6.) Supernatural Catholic Faith- A belief that God inhabits the community of the Church, has established Church as the only one and true community and true faith will leave earthly communities as proof of "true faith". This is the faith of monks and nuns or priests and the consecrated (Ana baptists).<br />
<br />
Each kind of "faith" is acceptable in our society, but unfortunately, such ways of understanding faith, "God", the Church and Government leads to conflict.<br />
<br />
People that have the later 3 kinds of faith tend toward exclusivity because of their dependence on supernaturalism and community. Whereas, people that identify with one of the first 3 categories have an easier time finding their place, as they tend to choose their commitment to faith, more than the others.<br />
<br />
(My thinking has been influenced by William Perry's Intellectual Development; James Fowler's Faith Development; and Thomas Kohlburg's Moral Development}Angie Van De Merwehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3014661972845014530.post-79408856048291669992012-08-18T18:26:00.002-07:002012-08-18T18:26:57.408-07:00Hollywood As a Means to an EndHollywood has tremedous power in our society! Hollywood can make an impact upon society by its messages. What messages should Hollywood make?<br />
<br />
"Hope Springs", "The Hunger Games", "The Matrix" and many others have had significance for society for "educational purposes". These can bring discussion and "enlightenment" to those sitting in the theatre. Hollywood is a means. But, only if the people sitting in the theatres are prone to think deeper than the story.<br />
<br />
Angie Van De Merwehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3014661972845014530.post-70787304894406001102012-08-18T17:31:00.001-07:002012-08-18T18:18:25.992-07:00"Hope Springs" and New MeaningOn our anniversary, my husband and I decided to go to the movies to watch the new Meryl Streep movie, "Hope Springs". We think Meryl Streep is a great actress, and thought this would be a good choice for entertainment. But, instead of entertainment, I found myself wondering what meaning I could find in the movie.<br />
<br />
The movie is about a couple who had "lost touch" with each other, as they had been married for 31 years. Their basic problem, it seemed, was their lack of communication or intimacy. Intimacy was much more than the physical act of sex, or the legal aspect of marriage. Intimacy was the communication style of the couple, which had broken down.<br />
<br />
They sought a marriage counselor only after much "dispute" and it seemed that the marriage counselor's advice brought up many 'conflicts' within the relationship, which needed to be resolved before the marriage could "go on".<br />
<br />
The counselor sought to bring to the forefront the question about their basic attraction to one another, what their fantasies were and encouraging the couple to compromise and cooperate with each other in meeting those desires.<br />
<br />
All of the counselors advice made me think of "sex" within the broader context of our society, in general. America has had her conflict over what will define marriage, but is marriage a traditional/religious value, or a social construct that benefits the parties involved?<br />
<br />
How can human relationships and natural human desires exist within a healthy context that maintains "order", while not denying the natural needs and desires of the humans involved? Does shame enter into the questions that this movie brought to the forefront? Marital difficulties, separation and divorce, masturbation, oral sex, human desire and natural needs in the context of religious framing when social structures and society itself has changed in light of "scripture and tradition"?<br />
<br />
Humans get married at later ages than in "biblical times", leaving the question of natural human desires on the physical and emotional/social planes. Students need to finish college or find what they want to do with their lives before taking on responsiblities of a spouse and family... Are natural human desires to be accomadated by marrying earlier, self determination (however conscience allows), and is it a "shame" to allow for same sex unions? What is the best for society and human flourishing? Does tradition enlighten, or inhibit? When is inhibition and enlightenment considered a good thing? Does society exists for the individual or does the individual exists for society? That question has been a quandary....<br />
<br />
"Hope Springs" made me think of our society and what makes for a good marriage, and and a good society. It cannot be less than mutually satisfying relationship, if marriage is to have a real meaning and impact. And both the husband and wife in "Hope Springs" illustrated what that meant for them individually. The wife had come to the "end of the highway", because she found herself more lonely married than she would be unmarried. The husband had abandoned his wife many years prior, yet would not admit it to himself for his own reasons. Marriage is about companionship, as much as sex, or a legal contract. And it makes for "stranger bedfellows" if marriage is about anything less.....Angie Van De Merwehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3014661972845014530.post-48199721106491974032012-04-12T09:16:00.004-07:002012-04-12T09:53:39.403-07:00The Falling and Confiscation of LibertyTo compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. – Thomas Jefferson<br /><br />The individual mandate is forcing individuals into commerce, or using money in ways that they might not choose. It certainly is forcing the Catholic Church to fund birth control, even though their beliefs do not sanction such behavior.<br /><br />I'm not interested in this post primiarily about birth control, Obamacare, or beliefs per se. I am only interested in how our government has become one that doesn't support and value liberty, as it did in our Founder's Day. Why is this?<br /><br />The rage today is "systems think", though our Founders were setting up a system of government, they did not want the system to over-ride individual liberty, thus the Bill of Rights. Government was to limit itself with proper checks and balances.<br /><br />Today, government wants to intrude into our pocketbooks to create safety nets for those that haven't taken advantage of the opportunities that are before them in this nation. These are those that know how to use the system to their advantage and some of them do so without conscience. Criminal minds can easily use systems, because the system is so reliable. People in systems thinking are labelled to fulfill a role in the system that ends up determining and controlling human beings because of "outcomes". This is what the Founders understood as tyranny, because government or another had not right to interfere with the right to "own my own life". Owning one's own life or self-government was what liberty was about!.<br /><br />The Constitution was what protected the citizen, but, without those in power honoring Constitutional protections and upholding "the rule of law", we have an undermining of our nation-state and citizen's rights for a "higher end" of "human rights". What is wrong with human rights? Human rights is a "collective identification". And collectivism labels to systemize and control, or determine, or experiment. These are not the values that our Founders had, as to government.<br /><br />Collective identifications undermine individual intiative, incentive and outcomes, because people are labelled by race/ethnicity, gender, or religious affliation. When individuals are labelled, there is a depersonalization that makes for an undercutting of individual rights according to our Constitutional protections. "Humankind" has rights above and beyond specific individuals, society has a right over and above individuals and government has a right over and above individuals. This was known as tyranny by our Founding Fathers.<br /><br />I am concerned about where we are headed because elites in the Academy have bought into "collective" or "group thinking", because humans are social beings, like any other animal. The question I have is do animals have the reasoning capacity that man does? Doesn't that make man different? If so, is man to be treated as "just another animal"?Angie Van De Merwehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3014661972845014530.post-64674132252566886452012-02-01T07:40:00.000-08:002012-02-01T08:13:33.279-08:00I Have Nothing to Say, But I Must Say ItAmerica is known to be the "land of the free" and the "home of the brave". We love liberty and we value industry. Therefore, we prosper because individuals can find their place in our society and choose how they will be productive citizens. Some who love power and use that power to "lord it over" were limited in their power by our "Bill of Rights". The fight for "freedom of speech", even when it is not "politically correct" is a fight for the brave, who value our liberty too much to see it lost. "Political correctness" is about power and the "right" value according to politics.<br /><br />Some people love to control other's lives, these like to propagandize what is the "politically correct" position. While granted it is necessary to create boundaries for children, is control really what is best for personal growth and development. as well as affirming 'liberty"? Some think there is no other way to "make sure" things work out the "right way". What is the "right way"? Outcomes? or Moral or Ethical values? Who is to determine what is "right"?<br /><br />Utility is "making sure" that the right people are in the right place. This is organizational structuring. But, utility controls, as to means. The "right people" must be in the "right place" for outcomes to be guarunteed. But, is this the moral value of American ideals and the ethical value of liberty and choice for individuals? I don't think so.<br /><br />Control is anathema to American ideals of life and liberty. Control is about power and the use of the law. And such power is not about "equality before the law", but, is about slavery and servitude. These are not American values, as we do not believe it is moral or ethical to undermine liberty of choice and rights before the law.<br /><br />So, I have nothing to say to those that want to be "politically correct" and use power over granting liberty. I have nothing to say, but I must say it, to those that will listen. Unfortunately, my life is not "politically correct", so I have no right to "free speech". Is this the moral value, we want to promote? I think those that are on "both sides of the aisle" are promoting visions of America that do not lead to liberty, but enslavement of different kinds.Angie Van De Merwehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3014661972845014530.post-43463984157211721612012-01-11T09:55:00.000-08:002012-01-11T10:22:54.712-08:00Why Do Pragmatic Solutions Not Answer the Ideals?Pragmatism is living in the real world. It application of knowledge, as in technology. It is life experience, which is activism, and service oriented jobs. So, why does pragmatism leave some humans "cold"? Why are "ideals" so important to move "the human", whether ideals are used by the poltician to gain the vote, or the marketer to gain the sale. Humans respond to ideals.<br /><br />Those with artistic bents, are not prone to be moved by the statistics and analysis or the facts of "science". Art, though, is the expression of "the human". It is connection to human feelings, thoughts and experiences that brings more to life than monotonous existence. Art is beauty. Art is creativity. Art is self expression. Art is philosophy. And art can't be appreciated if there is no liberty for expression. Expression is art!<br /><br />The question of the value of art in today's technologically oriented society makes for questions about the "humanizing forces" of art.<br /><br />Our brains, bodies and very being are affected by our senses. The senses are engaged in art and have an impact on emotion, or the sentinent portion of "the human". Art can help relieve stress, or process grief. Art is therapeutic for "Man".<br /><br />Art is imagery in poetry, as in painting. Art is fashion and interior design. Art is drama and dance. Art is about color.<br /><br />Art has not always been appreciated, as art is representative of something that humans can all understand and this is what has made art "idolatrous" to religious ideals. Relgious ideals either translate "God" into the practical, which is religion, or the mystical, which is the spiritual. Because "God" isn't understood as a metaphor of human expression, but as a real and active being, "the human" has been crushed under the "foot of God". This is why I much prefer being atheistic in understanding of "art", as even art must be interpreted. And art's expression and interpreted meaning is about personal realities. What was the artist thinking or meaning by a particular painting, essay or drama? "God" is really about human expression. And human expression must have liberty for "the human" to fulfill potential. "God" interferes with "life", because of some projected and protected meaning about/to/for life.<br /><br />Our Founders understood the value of protecting liberty for conscience's sake. And conscience is about "art"!Angie Van De Merwehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3014661972845014530.post-87187153451429979662011-12-28T09:53:00.000-08:002011-12-28T10:15:27.362-08:00What Are the Implications of a Political Class That Is Disconnected to the Military and the Citizen?Leadership models abound, but the military will always have a hierarchal view on leadership, as without it, there is no "order"! but, as has been reported by Time and mentioned in my last blog post, there is a growing disconnect between the "political class" and the "military class", which leaves the military under a "chain of command" that is disconnected from the realities of real sacrifice for the "common cause" of protecting national issues that are vital to national concern. The military sacrifice for "the honor" of country. And such sacrifice should not be disconnected from a politician's understanding of the costs! Otherwise, politicians will use the military and those that volunteer, as a sacrifice itself for political ends of a political career!<br /><br />The manipulation of the military, is on the scope of the "world scene", while the basic duties of domestic tranquility leave the "political class" less concerned or engaged for the citizen's ends of liberty. And liberty is personal, as to religious conscience and vocational service. Jobs, and the economy are basic interests of citizens, who might not be aware of political careers, but are all too well aware of how Washington is affecting their pocketbooks!Angie Van De Merwehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3014661972845014530.post-63690624667470516312011-12-27T10:16:00.000-08:002011-12-27T10:48:18.891-08:00WAR Between the Classes Is More Than EconomicIn Novemeber, there was an article in Time that intrigued me. The article suggested that there had been and now is a wide gap between what Time called "the military class" and "the Political Elite". And this is what got me thinking today, as I was thinking about class warfare and its usefulness for political manipulation.<br /><br />The Times article suggested that the military class was becoming ingrown, as more and more children of military families volunteer for military service. These understand military culture, which values duty, honor and country. And such an ingrown culture is not unlike that of elite academia, which until recently didn't allow ROTC into their university environments. Such a condition can't help but alienate "the Academy" from "the military class" and it widens the gap of understanding between the military and those that work in other areas of government. When such alienation happens, it is no wonder that each talks "past each other", because they have different goals and foci.<br /><br />While the military has been gathering a more ingrown culture, the political class has forgotten the military's major reason for existing and their duty to protect the citizenry against foreign powers under the protections of a Constitutional government. The "academic elite" are those that usually get into political office these days. Those that serve as "Commander in Chief" aren't required to serve in the military, and as a result, humanitarian emphasis has become as important as our nation's political interests. Humanitarian interests sometimes conflicts with the public interests and the public trust of the elected official and national security issues. Should the elected official do his duty of serving his country as elected or seek to implement a change that is not limited or accountable to the people or other branches of government?<br /><br />Yesterday the Washington Post had an article about the rising costs of campaigning and how limited the average person is in running for office and having an ability to win. Today, the wealth accumulated by our elected officials has furthered the gap between the citizen and the political class.<br /><br />Such gaps of wealth accumulation further propitiate a "ruling class" where their personal business interests become a consideration when overseeing public affairs/policy deicisions. Where is the ethics of a Congress that can grant exceptions and exemptions to their political allies? Croynism becomes the culture of corruption and leaves the little guy wondering what is happening to his own material security.<br /><br />Our society if fraught today with many Wars. The culture war between faith and the political; the class warfare between the rich and the poor; the political class and the military; and the ruling class and the peasant. Is it any wonder why the French revolted when their country used public trust and public funds to help other countries, while their own society disintergrated into desolation? Is it any wonder that those that play on political chaos for ther own political gain have the makings of dictators that have no sense of boundary regarding their office? Is it any wonder that the Tea Party and the Occupiers have expressed various concerns, and why the political class isn't interested because they don't really have to be? They are unaccountable and well equipped to take care of themselves without considering what their own self interest costs the nation. Whenever government and its officials become a "law unto themselves", then the rest of us had better be prepared for some rough waters ahead.Angie Van De Merwehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3014661972845014530.post-7208847051751602292011-12-26T11:16:00.000-08:002011-12-26T11:39:38.011-08:00A Grandmother's Shopping Liberty and the GovernmentThis morning a friend posted this statement on FB, "Today, some folks have to worry about running a country or keeping a multi-billion dollar business afloat. I just have to find a pink cowgirl hat." I have another post about this same comment, but, I must share the other implications about this comment.<br /><br />The implications of being able to enjoy the peace of good government and how business, as well as personal values are dependent on it. The "rule of law" was to guard each one against each one, as this was equal justice, not preferrential treatment. Such a statement as; "Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy." ~Louis Brandeis, is very true, because our country was founded on the right to resist. We were a people BY CONSENT, but politicians like to make use of "tactile consent" meaning that leaders are "FREE" to do as they please, since they are elected officials. <br /><br />While I do not disagree in the least that those elected to public office MUST use tactile consent to make policy decisions, as without it, politicians would be encumbered by many constraints, that would limit their ability to govern. But, when politicians use this right to their advantage, or in spite of "the people's consent", then haven't they become contemptuous of those they are to govern? When does such an action become a violation of trust in our elected officials, and thus a loss of confidence in our government? And when does this loss of confidence become demoralizing or angering to those that thought their voice was important, valued or heard?<br /><br />Americans do take their government for granted. We believe that we can go when we please and find the Pink cowgirl hat for our grand-daughter, apart from the responsibilities of elected officials. And this is how it should be, because our elected officials should be trustworthy with the people's trust and the people's monies.Angie Van De Merwehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3014661972845014530.post-75909132254690269662011-12-26T09:53:00.000-08:002011-12-26T10:25:46.400-08:00Colors Through Life Experiences....and Their Personal MeaningThis morning a friend posted this statement on FB, "Today, some folks have to worry about running a country or keeping a multi-billion dollar business afloat. I just have to find a pink cowgirl hat."<br /><br />My mind immediately tried to connect the three aspects together, which is a usual for me, as all of us try to understand what another person means by what they say or write. As the statement was meant not to CONNECT these three, but distinguish these three, I had made a categorical error in my evaluation about the meaning of the statement! She was making a comment about her grand-daughter's preferences and how she would meet those desires and how she didn't have the responsibility to oversee a government or business. And this was her emphasis about finding a Pink cowgirl hat!<br /><br />When I came around to correcting myself, by reading the other comments, we "talked" about our color preferences as children, as not all girls like Pink as little girls. I preferred Red, while my friend emphasized her like for shiny things, not the usual doll. She focused on the tangible toy, while I focused on the abstract color preference.<br /><br />Some people continue to love the color they loved as children, and the color defines them, while others change their preferences. I think I have come to love all colors, and the colors I've particularly been drawn to at a point in time have represented aspects of my emotional values.<br /><br />Red was the color of choice as a little girl. It stood for vibrancy and life. But, when I grew toward puberty, I preferred orange. Orange is red with yellow added. Yellow produces anxiety and energy. Both expressed my entrance into puberty. When I got into the real world of dating, I preferred Green, which is yellow plus blue. Blue was the cool and calm comfort with the contrasting mix of anxiety and energy. I was attempting to find love through my college years and it represented what I sought and the effect it had on me.<br /><br />When asked what my favorite color is today, I find it really hard to decide! I think it is because life has so many expressions and experiences that can't be contained in one color! That is how I "see" and understand things in my life! I just know that in decorating I love contrast! I love to see the differences and distinctions of color! And I prefer for those distinctions to play off of each other! That makes life exciting and diverse and not the drab, colorless world of beiges.<br /><br />Greys are different from beiges as they combine a negative and postive, but beiges combine black with yellow and dilute it with white. Blah. Therefore, grey has become a color I enjoy.<br /><br />What do colors mean and how have you come to understand them in your life, whether their emotional impact, and meaning or your decorative choice and value?Angie Van De Merwehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3014661972845014530.post-15455738858764964842011-12-26T07:32:00.000-08:002011-12-26T07:36:21.050-08:00One Cannot Universalize the Personal Within the Political Realm!Humans have basic needs, which cannot be prioritized universally, but must remain the realm of the personal, as we are individuals that "make our way" within our various contexts.<br /><br />The liberal wants to universalize what has to remain personal (a choice of value in the political world). And the conservative wants to universalize meaning, which has to also remain personal. Both the political life of a person and the "meaning" of life for the person must be made within a liberal form of government that does not oversee or overintend "the personal"!!! That is if the person of to remain "free" not just in a "Transcendent" sense, but a real and political sense!!!!!Angie Van De Merwehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3014661972845014530.post-25843972362465270592011-11-20T11:08:00.000-08:002011-11-20T11:53:00.520-08:00What We Believe In, We PromoteWhat we believe in we promote; the Church believes in its mission for its own survival, as any entity seeks to survive. Survival is basic to humans physically, socially and psychologically, as well as businesses, States and communities. Survival is the most basic of needs.<br /><br />Today's sermon was on one of the most primary needs and emphasis of evangelicalism, which is "Evangelism" (but converts are needed in all religions, if they continue to thrive and grow, unless that particular religious tradition builds itself through populating the earth and enculturating the earth in this way.) Though evangelicals don't like to think of themselves as fundamentalists, they really are, because they accept "special revelation" or a 'higher or transcendent truth". Such "truth" was what our pastor talked about today, as it is a means of "transformation".The message took a passage from Acts to suggest that Phillip was to help interpret the eunach's questions about a passage he was reading from Isaiah. This is the "mission of the church' to help others understand their lives within the context of "God's Plan" "Purpose or Vision", which is identified within "the Bible". Such a vision is about about spiritualizing one's understanding, or seeing things through "God's perspective", and surrendering one's understanding to the Magisterium, The Church's "teaching minsters". The Magisterium were the appointed leaders to "conform" converts to "correct doctrine", so that "perfection" might be attained.<br /><br />The Magesterium talk about transcendent realities, that are not practical realities, except to further the Church's mission. 'Missions" are really about political realities and goals.I must give credit to our pastor, though, as he did affirm the need of "the human". He talked of the evangelical church's "sin" of not listening, or attempting to convert before building relationship, etc. But, the end goal of such relationship is still to convert and conform. "God' is still the priority of such agendas, not the person themself. (But, perhaps, I judge the pastor too harshly, as he truly believes what he preaches, I believe. And we all tend to promote what we believe in, don't we?). The person themself is the end, not "God", in my opinion. And the person, themself, is the answer to many difficulties we face in our nation presently.<br /><br />The issues of peace, and virtue are Roman values that have come to impact the Church's "mission" as the Church was intially accused of creating a disturbance to peace, and were blamed for the downfall of Rome. But, today, peace and virtue are the "transforming work" of the Church. According to the "first modern historian of the Roman Empire", Edward Gibbon, Christians had lost their "civic virtue", because they were waiting to "be saved" in the next "life". And many in the Roman Empire had handed over its protection to the Praetorian Guard. A recent Time's article suggests that this is what has happened in America today. The "military class" is becoming isolated and insulated from the "power elite" and the average American citizen! Such a gap does not encourage citizenship and the larger issues of character. The Military Academy at Westpoint has as its motto; "We don't lie, cheat, or steal and we don't tolerate those who do". This is a high standard for most of the "power elite". The military is "taken for granted" but not applauded by many. In fact, many liberals think that Utopian ideals are attainable apart from realistic goals and grounded historical realities.<br /><br />Our pastor's message was a message that the evangelical church wants to promote. And fortunately, in America, one can give their life to what they believe in, not what they are forced to believe!Angie Van De Merwehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3014661972845014530.post-16615205346557514912011-10-28T06:54:00.000-07:002011-10-28T08:04:44.568-07:00Religious Conscience and LifestyleI recently commented on a friend's post about research on "gay lifestyles". The post was referenced back to "Renew America", which is a Christian grassroots political organization. Such organizations have a particular agenda that they deem significant because of their belief that "God" has ordained Scripture to be the "tried and true" (and right) way to promote human flourishing. I have questions.<br /><br />First of all, I do not accept that the text as "inspired by God", other than it was written by men in certain situations that granted wisdom of and for that day. Today's wisdom is a scientifically oriented one, not a religiously biased one.<br /><br />Secondly, I do not believe that anyone should be promoting a re-orientation to another's identity, unless it is damaging to society. This research was promoting a "repentance" from a lifestyle that was considered forbidden by "God", as they take the text at "face value". Such "re-framing" of identity is "in Christ". It is a movement of social organizing for a specific purpose, which is "God's Kingdom", as they interpret Scripture.<br /><br />Such people believe that "God" exists and oversees all things and "God" has revealed His will in the confines of The Book. This is the traditonal view of evangelical Protestant Christianity, but it does not recognize the broader questions other than take at "face value" what is "to be believed". They seek to validate Scripture by a presuppositonal stance toward it! There is no way to disprove Scripture, because one's community is a self-perpituating entity. Truth is to be proven, and experienced, instead of sought out and discovered! And those that don't believe "lack faith" to believe and be "saved"!<br /><br />This "tradition" does not take into consideration the history of the Church, or the roots of Judiasm, when they think of "faith". Theirs is an experiential and lived faith that they think is appropriate to promote for everyone. Theirs is an intense "mission focused' and oriented. All people are to be brought under their umbrella, as this is promoting "the Kingdom of God". While such a movement is not rooted in "deep history", it is rooted in American Revivalist tradition, and serves the purposes of furthering the political machine of "the social".<br /><br />I know what it is like to suffer under another's religious conscience. Transitional and memorable life events were tainted or undermined by those that "thought better" than what I desired! The reason could be nothing other than the "conviction" that they were right and I was wrong, or that they were the "authority"! There was no "discussion" about differences of opinion, because their "conviction" was "not an opinion"!!! It was "God's fact"! If there was resistance, then I was rebellious, disobedient and would live under "God's judgment". The fear of God was to "keep people in line". Such attitudes did not "happen" until there was a conversion experience! Then, the experience somehow gave such as these "God's mind"!<br /><br />"Self" is defined by such religious cultures and ceases to exist apart from another's sanctoning, sanctimonious and righteous attitude about life and all that is! Persecution will ensue if one does not acquiesce to such "convictions". A Bible beating is the end of such questioning, or differences of opinion. One wonders if these have any sense of "self" other than what they "feel" to be "God". The truth is that "God" is really THEIR conscience! And others are to be conformed to it!<br /><br />I have come to the point where religion is not beneficial to me, and I do not want to promote it, other than allow those that want to affirm their faith in a way that is non-interfering to others.<br /><br />When I think back about my journey, I used to also be persuaded that leaving churches that allowed divorcees to teach, or withdrawing approval of those that chose to see things differently was an appropriate way to handle "life's problems". And if everyone would concur with Scripture everyone would come to a unified understanding and life would be "perfect". In the meantime, I was comforted with the fact that life's tragedies were to teach me for "God's purposes"! It was all about me, because I needed it to be!<br /><br />I still need it to be "about me", as everyone else does. Self interst is a "fact of life". Individuals are unique in their interests, but not in their desires. The desire to be loved, accepted and understood is a human trait, but all individuals will differ in interests, values and commitments. I don't believe that to be "human" means that one has to be a clone in one's interests, values and commitments. This seems to be the case for many in the evangelical camp. They think that if one has a difference of opinion concerning such social issues as abortion, gay marriage, etc. then, you are undermining "God's order" of the universe!<br /><br />Gay marriage should be legalized in our society because it is just. Society can stll affirm monogomy which affirms the value of the two individuals involved, as well as protect society from STDs. Gays have desires, as all humans do for sexual expression and commitment to the person that means the most to them. That expression should be allowed within the confines of a marital relationship, where the partners can be respected as equal before the law and not marginalized by those that think they have "God's mind"!Angie Van De Merwehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3014661972845014530.post-42059296483678279852011-10-15T08:18:00.000-07:002011-10-15T08:52:02.640-07:00A Note for Humanism and It's IdealsI have been reading and reading and it seems to me that today's thrust for religion is humanistis, rather than Theistic. But, what are the problems of humanism, as an ideal? Humanism can't be held as individuals in their OWN right are the only end, not some cultural "ideal"! Otherwise, individuals are not values, only the "ideal", which is unattainable in this world.<br /><br />All "solutions" are pragmatic ones, which mean that there is planning and "engineering" of sorts, which makes for success in a given strategy. But, goals of universalization or universals, themselves aren't pragmatic, because the world is much too large and diverse. Unless one wants to promote a uniformity upon the world. This solution politically and practically speaking is 'communism". Equality is regulated by some "power" which is unregulated itself. And this is the problem, isn't it?<br /><br />Yesterday, when I heard that we would be sending special troops into Central Africa, I wondered why. Was it necessary to sacrifice our special forces to such an endeavor, when we are already stretched militarily and financially? Didn't our Constituton ask the President and other elected officials to protect our country and uphold our Constitution? Then, how come our Representatives are not protecting OUR interests? This is an underhanded way to promote humanistic values, isn't it? And is the intent to dissolve our nation of it power, to prevent "special priviledge'? Or is it our "moral duty" to protect the loss of life in ALL OTHER countries, at the same time reducing our military budgets and submitting to tyranncial governments? What is to be the outcome IF we do not RESIST such governments? And haven't our attempts to equip others to protect themselves ended up backfiring on us at a later date? There will not be Utopian ideals attained in this world and life. And yet, humanists want Utopian ideals and dreams.<br /><br />The Jews have been the foundation to a Christian undestanding of "priviledge" and our humanitarian values have should restitution to the Holocost for them. What is to be our resitution to the world in giving this land to the Jews? Will the Jews continue to be ostericized by the world and hated by the Muslim? Do we think that when we try to rectify "injustice", as perceived by one that we un-do justice on the other hand? Will our attempts at pacifying Islam result in what has been a warning from those that should know; Islam's desire to hold global power and dominance?<br /><br />It seems to me that there is a naive and idealistic hope that the "world will live in peace" and we will all live happily ever after! The problem is; if that can't be true for each and all individuals, then how in the Hell can it be true for the WORLD? Society is only made up of individuals, as society ONLY exists in the mind!!Angie Van De Merwehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3014661972845014530.post-27120499575575710332011-09-22T13:35:00.000-07:002011-09-22T13:59:45.191-07:00"God" Is Always Used for Christian JustificationI am tired, weary and angry over people asserting their knowledge about "God" and justifying what they do as "Biblical"! In the same breathe these people will contradict themselves, because it justifies their judgment about others, while defending their right, choice or value. This is why I vote for self-reflection and honestly admitting what one really wants. But, perhaps, that is too painful to face, as it makes for painful acknowledgment of need, weakness, or lack, which the person might think reflects upon their own self image.<br /><br />We all have self-images that we think are important to protect or value, but when "self-image" or reputation becomes a dominating force to convince others about "God" or "right", then it leaves a "bad taste in the mouth".<br /><br />For instance, I was talking with a friend the other day. She'd been hurt, and she had righful reason to be. I was trying to be a good listener, but when she went into a tirade about those who'd hurt her standing under "God's judgment" and claiming that they would have to give an account to "God". I was "put off". She was needing reassurance that she was valued at that moment and didn't want to admit that her attempt at "promoting God's judgment" was just a sorry attempt to justify her right to have her feelings. I hate for "God" to be the justifier of another's existance, or right to have feelings of anger, hurt, etc.! It seems like denial, deflection and outright self deception!<br /><br />Another instance of "God" justifying a position that should be acknowledged, is when there is competition and jealousy. Competition and jealousy are known to be human tendencies that "take over" when one doesn't feel valued or special. These inhibits another's ability to enjoy another's specialness, or success for fear that it will diminish ther own sense of 'self". Or their self image is so bound up in what the other thinks or says about them, that they are frozen in their ability to express gratitude or honest praise!<br /><br />So, I think that "God" is a useful means to control, manipulate and judge another without taking self responsibility about one's own feelings and what is transpiring. That is not liberty but bondage. It is self-deluded attempt to feel better or more important, than another. And that isn't "righteous indignation", it is pride. The ugly kind!Angie Van De Merwehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3014661972845014530.post-51940273233472245762011-09-11T14:03:00.000-07:002011-09-11T14:27:16.930-07:00Sovereignty and the GlobalToday's world leave one with a quandary about what to do and how to thnk in "global ways". Doesn't globalism dissolve identficaton and personal boundaries? These are questions about Sovereignty.<br /><br />Sovereignty is about boundaries, and the "rule of law". Laws describe crime and courts convict those that haven't respected the boundaries that protect the social order. Countries respect another country's right to differ, as we allow diplomatic immunity to those that might trangress one nation's laws, that aren't especially important in another country.<br /><br />I think about Hirshi Ayan Ali, who has escaped Somalia and an arranged marriage, to find herself in the Netherlands getting an education and a sear on Parliament. When it was finally found ou that her citizenship was based on deception, then the Dutch had to investigate the right of her citizenship. In the end, she was allowed citizenship on the basis that her deception was not considered deception in Somalia! Hirshi's understanding when she filled out the form for citizenship was interpreted by her reference point, Somalian tradition.<br /><br />It has just been pointed out that when an artificial identity is imposed, without the person coming to terms with their identity themselves, that there is resistance. Such a case could be made with the European Union and how difficult it was in the first place to bring about a unity, to see countries revert back to their identifying natonalities!!!<br /><br />One wonders what this might mean in global affairs that have to do with business interests, national security and individual rights. Corporations now have rights to personhood, which might mean that individuals aren't considered any more a person, than a corporation....national security is of interest if one believes that nation states should and do have various interests to protect....but that isn't the frame in today's post-modern culture, where anything and everything s up for grabs.<br /><br />I believe that there must be a prioritizingof values, before one can make a choice about what to do in a particular situation. Human rights is a universal, but is the United Nations to supercede the nation-state and its right to self-defense? Self-defense is a natural right! And must be protected...if we want to maintain civilization itself! Otherwise, groups of all kinds make for a cloudy future for defense of liberty, as equality will be imposed, not sought as a natural right by individuals!!!Angie Van De Merwehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3014661972845014530.post-68268581241972226682011-09-11T10:18:00.000-07:002011-09-11T10:39:16.425-07:009-11, a Call for Help! And Is Government the Answer?Today, is the 10th anniversary of our nation's face to face encounter with terrorism. It was a human Tragedy, but it was also an act of War! How do we see it today, and how will it affect our views in the future? These are questions I'm sure many have on their minds and hearts today!<br /><br />Terror is an act that is taken against another's Sovereignty. Sovereignty has to do with the right to rule. And the right to rule has to do with government. Our nation values self-government as our ideal, as it protects the values of liberty and conscience. This is the reason why we value human rights, as an ideal.<br /><br />Humans form societies, and our Founding Fathers created our country to be founded on a basic understanding of "self government". The individual was to rule, not be ruled or dominated by another. Our government was the first to undermine the 'Divine Right of Kings", where government's officials were "granted the right" or "annointed" to rule by "God". Our nation was formed by men that used higher education and human reason to form the rules, or laws that were to govern society. These laws protected individual rights. Reason was unique in man and was the foundation of "conscience".<br /><br />Today, on the 10th anniversary of 9-11, do we see the need for more government, or less, than our Founders understood to be legitimate? How much is too much, when our nation looks toward a future? Is the future to be determined by government officials, or individual citizens? Are we to be "a people", or a government? Civic responsibility is the responsibility of all of us in a free and open society. "The people" should have the right to their own sovereignty, otherwise, governemnt will not seek legitamacy. The consent of the governed is the only way to protect against intrusive and invasive corruptions of power!Angie Van De Merwehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3014661972845014530.post-81189668623434133662011-09-02T08:52:00.000-07:002011-09-02T09:04:32.700-07:00Human Right, as Universal? or The Nation State as the Universal?Many assert that human rights are the ulitmate universal. While I have no doubt that American liberties are what I value, is this what everyone else values as an ultimate? It seems that human rights has been a useful means to manipulate the American public to undermine public policy in our own nation, to benefit those that are not as tolerant! Are there universals that can be accepted by everyone? This is a question about what is 'human": one's cultural values, or the moral order that should rule all interests??? One is based on personal conscience and/or values", the other is based on "law". One values culture, and the individual, while the other values the nation state. What is really Sovereign, one's conscience, as to " values", or law? Is moral order more important than diversity? Are one's duties more important than one's choices? Or is choice to be limited by the State, such that we become militaristic/deterministic in our culture?
<br />
<br />American society has been an open society, as to choices about values. Those that want to regulate human behavior might be seeking somethng other than liberty of conscience as to one's personal choices about values. These want to control and conform, not allow tolerance toward difference and diversity of interests.
<br />
<br />Our society needs "shape", but not at the costs of liberty, otherwise, those that have intolerant philosophies might just use them to manipulate to conform our nation to their own designs! And all America looses! And citizens will be clones, of the State, whether relgious or political.
<br />Angie Van De Merwehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3014661972845014530.post-38104841270717256102011-08-28T21:10:00.000-07:002011-08-28T21:35:19.813-07:00Is Coping Wrong?On reviewing an old post questioning whether America should legalize marijuana, I began thinking about the reasons that I used to argue for legalization. What were the benefit to people and society?. And that got me thinking about coping, as coping is the main reason for addictions, at least in the beginning. Is coping "wrong"?
<br />
<br />All humans cope to escape fears, anxiety, hopelessness, helplessness, frustration, boredom, anger, loneliness, lovelessness, isolation, and I'm sure I'm leaving some human emotions out. All of these feelings leave one seeking answers, or questioning one's existance, and one's future. All humans do this.
<br />
<br />Psychologists and psychiatrists, have medicatons and therapies that address such feelings. But there are numerous ways/therapies in which these feelings are addressed. And medications depend on the diagnosis. But, therapies and medications are acceptable ways of coping. "Addictions" are not.
<br />
<br />What is an addiction but a way to cope? Addictions are wrong because of a person's dependence on them. but, depedence on a therapist and medication is not considered unhealthy. The problem with addictions is the costs to the indvidual and society at large. Interesting, isn't it? Acceptable coping is a "cost analysis" to society, first and foremost.
<br />
<br />I am in no way justifying addictions, but questoning society's means of addressing such addictions and asking why is this methold useful or accepted?
<br />
<br />Religous ways of coping are no more less an addiction, but seems worse to me, because it is depending on a transcendent realm that isn't even possible to affirm. Twelve step programs use "a power greater than oneself" to get beyond addiction. Why would this work? Is it a sense of being "helped"? I believe it is more the case that these Twelve Step groups are support groups. People tend to respond to "like-mindedness". It gives them a sense of identity and less a sense of isolation, which addresses one of the main culprits of addictons, "hiding one's true feelings".
<br />
<br />Coping is and should be a way of living, as none of us are immune to pain, suffering and chance in this world. Therefore, we do need friends especially in times of crisis. But, friendship everyday helps everyone to cope a little better in this world. And I believe such need is of major importance n our society today. This is one reason why social networking on the Internet has become so popular! All human need a friend.
<br />Angie Van De Merwehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3014661972845014530.post-73080320419432518632011-08-23T10:57:00.001-07:002011-08-23T11:21:48.838-07:00Brain/Mind and Human NeedsIt has been understood that the human always looks for causes to explain the world he lives in. Early in human history, humans understood the "cause" as "God" or Providence. Nowadays, science sneers at such beliefs, because science has understood itself as the tool to understand physical laws, not superstitious belief. But, what of human needs, as to the brain/mind?
<br />
<br />The human not just needs to understand and explain the causes of the universe, which can be explained by the facts of science, understanding natural laws. But, humans need the ability to trust that certain results will come from their "world". That is, humans need consistance in some way to be predictable, so that humans can organize their life and "feel they are free" and not pawns of some natural force that is unpredictable.
<br />
<br />Predictability begins to be understood by the child, as he grows to understand the world at his parent's knee. The parent is "god" in the sense that the parent trains the child to predict what will happen if certain behaviors are done or left undone. This breeds a sense of security in the child as the child understands himself and the world as a predictable place.
<br />
<br />Humans do not fare well in natural disasters, human tragedy, or other types of "irregularity" in their "world". It traumatizes the human to experience such disruptions to the regularities fo life. It breeds anxiety and some experience the effects of Post Traumatic Stress.
<br />
<br />When the child grows to be a teen, he begins to understand that the law, which guards the socety, which he is a part of, also is predictable. If you transgress, then there are costs. The law maintains social order, so the teen can understand what is expected from him in his society.
<br />
<br />The adult comes to understand that though the law protects the social order, life isn't nice and neat, like reaping and sowing, but results , sometimes, in human tragedy that is unpredictable, and sometimes disorienting. Such tragedies should never be judged as getting what one deserves, but understanding that life isn't as predictable as one once thought.
<br />
<br />Humans do need predictability, and this is when those that are prone to authoritarianism are prone to believe judgment is always the best way to treat such offenses. Otherwise, "the community" and soceity would go to "pot". These are anxious about protecting and defending what they deem as "absolute", and sometimes these people use 'God" to enforce their positions.
<br />Others think that compassion is a better way to express solidarity in life. No longer is it necessary to protect oneself from unpredictability, by control, nor to defend "God's order", nor is it necessary to affirm oneself in comparison to another. One has come to a point of understanding that life, and living are much more than a certain choice, that causes certain consequences. But, that life has parallel universes that produce different realities, this is true, but that life can be embraced, no matter which "world" one has chosen.
<br />Angie Van De Merwehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3014661972845014530.post-55086631877608009962011-08-22T10:39:00.000-07:002011-08-22T11:33:36.479-07:00Death, Suicide and the PersonI don't know what made me think about these subjects today, other than some postings on 9/11 on Facebook, and thinking about liberty! What makes one's physical life, a matter of value or commitment? And what makes for a life that is worth living? I come to my conclusions after considering those that have committed suicide. What were their reasons? And what makes a life not worth living?
<br />
<br />The first case was the Attack on America. The question was asked on FB, "Where were you and what were you doing on 9/11?". My thoughts turned to that day, that was just like any other, and the answer left me suffering the effects of the attack itself. That particular day, I was just an average person that was going about my morning routine of putting on my make-up, when I heard on the radio that there was a plane that had flown into one of the towers. Upon hearing of the accident, I started to cry, as this was how I had experienced my life, psychologically, at that point.
<br />
<br />At the time, the announcer didn't know if it was a commercial flight and assumed it was only a private plane! But as the events started unfolding it was obvious that those that had flown the planes, as well as those that were n the burning towers, weren't valuing their lives.
<br />
<br />What were some of the similarities and differences in these two categories of people. One was the agressor, against the "symbol of Western culture", "capitalism", while the other was just going about their daily tasks of furthering their own lives, as well as benefitting their society. One was motivated by a religious zeal that would make them fear "God's anger" and want "God's reward" for a "spirtualized kingdom". These terrorizors had separated reality from the "real world". Theirs was a spiritualized hope disconnnected from real people apart from their own religious tribe. These people were motivated by similar reasons as all people, as all humans are motivated by incentives and disincentives, as we are self-seeking creatures.
<br />
<br />One would not intially see the simliarities in these two groups, as their cultures are so different. But, those in the burning inferno were seeking a way out of their fear of being burned alive or suffocating to death. This is a rational fear, that brought about an irrational action because of the possible pain that might have been suffered either physically or psychologically. These were suffering a real and present danger in the real physical world. Were those that jumped to their death less courageous than those that flew the plane into the Trade Towers, because they sought relief from a painful death? On the surface, the terrorists were the courageous ones.
<br />
<br />Another group that suffers a real and present danger that impacts them long afterwards are our Armed Forces, who are experiencing suicide rates higher than at any other time. Many think that this is due to Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Their "realities" in the present have been affected by their experiences. They are reactive, anxious and fearful of what they had experienced while on the battlefield! Some do not want to get help, while others continue to struggle against such "imagined realities' and overcome them. But at what point does one loose hope to overcome them?
<br />
<br />Life is about choices. And fears breed choices that might not look rational, but are to those who suffer under such beliefs/thinking, whether religious spiritualized thinking, or past experiential thinking. Both impact what and how one views the present and interprets the future.
<br />
<br />Was it right for those in the burning towers to jump to their death, or did they take their life in their own hands. Who is to make that judgment when they themselves are the only ones that know what they really faced? Were they to have courage in the midst of being burned alive, rather than a quick and timely death by jumping? This thinking based on real world experience.
<br />
<br />But, real world experience is also the case for the ex-soldier, while his "reality" is not. Who is to advise him that his "stress" is only in his mind, when his mind might have been changed chemically, for all we know? Is he to be labelled fearful, because he has had these experiences that have affected him?
<br />
<br />The religious agressor based their reality on a spiritualized "hope" that didn't care what might happen n the real world as this was not their value. They would be recompensed. This thinking cannot be challenged, as theirs is special knowledge that breeds confirmaton bias.
<br />
<br />What makes for a rational decision? It depends on one's experience, beliefs, and fears. And each one of these categories of people had "rational reasons" for their behavior, at least according to their "Tradition", Experience, and/or Reason.
<br />Angie Van De Merwehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3014661972845014530.post-77731738068986789892011-08-20T07:58:00.000-07:002011-08-20T08:17:14.025-07:00Religon and Philosophy......Many want to understand how and why religion "works", as then, they can predict religous behavior and this is all important to protect against behaviors that might endanger all of us. So, some have tried various means to understand.
<br />
<br />One way of understanding is "belonging", where group behavior is predictable, as we are all social animals. But, group behavior can be dangerous as much as beneficial. This becomes problematic, too, when there are "free radcals" in the group that might lead the group "astray" from the "social order" to be maintained! And then, when groups become tightly identified, what happens to the "rest of society"?
<br />
<br />Another way of understand religion is "belief". These are philosophical ways of understanding life and all that is. "God" is the beginning and end of such thinking, as it is "theological". When theology is ahistorical, people become prone to disconnect from the "real world", either through their "denial" of reality; their belief that they will change reality into some spiritualized vision; or their withdrawal from reality and the real world!
<br />
<br />"Behavior" is really the "end" of what scientists want to understand, as behavior is "social control". Social control is needed when radical believers want to implement their vision upon society, or act in ways harmful to themselves because of such a belief. Some psychologists have believed that social conditioning is the best form of "training the human animal". But, one must understand how that must be done without co-ercive measures. That becomes problematic to a free society!
<br />
<br />Belonging is first formed within the family of origin. A child's sense of "who he is" and where he fits in the family is an important step to furthering the child's advancement or inhibiting it.
<br />
<br />Beliefs are also first grounded within the family of origin. These might not be formally taught as in religious communities, but are modelled by the families "way of life". These become internalized values, until the child becomes "of age" and gains his own sense or what and why he wants to own or dis-own a certain familial value.
<br />
<br />Behaviors are the result of a person's belief system. And one's belief about themselves and the world make for how one engages the world and presents themselves.
<br />
<br />In a free society, it becomes almost impossible to predict and control behavior at large, because individuals are free to believe differently and contingencies are numerous!
<br />Angie Van De Merwehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3014661972845014530.post-65857508779549756792011-08-16T07:41:00.000-07:002011-08-16T07:48:31.842-07:00Requirements of Leaders<a href="https://www.facebook.com/AtlasShrugged" hovercard="/ajax/hovercard/page.php?id=15686969411">Atlas Shrugged</a>
<br />You propose to establish a social order based on the following tenets: that you’re incompetent to run your own life, but competent to run the lives of others—that you’re unfit to exist in freedom, but fit to become an omnipotent ruler... P3C7
<br />
<br />The first principle of leadership is that they are self-aware, knowing how to run their own lives and not seeking to run other's lives! Freedom does not mean lack of self-responsible behavior, but consciously choosing the values one believes in. Choosing and not blaming is the first requirement of leadership! Our country used to be a country of leaders, not followers. Now, though, our country needs leaders again!
<br />Angie Van De Merwehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com0