Angie's Point

I Have Nothing to Say, But I Must Say It

2012-02-01T07:40:00.000-08:00

America 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.

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"?

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.

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.

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.

Why Do Pragmatic Solutions Not Answer the Ideals?

2012-01-11T09:55:00.000-08:00

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.

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!

The question of the value of art in today's technologically oriented society makes for questions about the "humanizing forces" of art.

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".

Art is imagery in poetry, as in painting. Art is fashion and interior design. Art is drama and dance. Art is about color.

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.

Our Founders understood the value of protecting liberty for conscience's sake. And conscience is about "art"!

What Are the Implications of a Political Class That Is Disconnected to the Military and the Citizen?

2011-12-28T09:53:00.000-08:00

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!

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!

WAR Between the Classes Is More Than Economic

2011-12-27T10:16:00.000-08:00

In 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

A Grandmother's Shopping Liberty and the Government

2011-12-26T11:16:00.000-08:00

This 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.

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.

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?

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.

Colors Through Life Experiences....and Their Personal Meaning

2011-12-26T09:53:00.000-08:00

This 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."

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

One Cannot Universalize the Personal Within the Political Realm!

2011-12-26T07:32:00.000-08:00

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.

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!!!!!

What We Believe In, We Promote

2011-11-20T11:08:00.000-08:00

What 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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Religious Conscience and Lifestyle

2011-10-28T06:54:00.000-07:00

I 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.

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.

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.

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"!

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".

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"!

"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!

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.

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!

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!

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"!

A Note for Humanism and It's Ideals

2011-10-15T08:18:00.000-07:00

I 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.

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?

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.

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?

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!!

"God" Is Always Used for Christian Justification

2011-09-22T13:35:00.000-07:00

I 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.

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".

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!

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!

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!

Sovereignty and the Global

2011-09-11T14:03:00.000-07:00

Today'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.

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.

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.

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!!!

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.

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!!!

9-11, a Call for Help! And Is Government the Answer?

2011-09-11T10:18:00.000-07:00

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!

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.

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".

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!

Human Right, as Universal? or The Nation State as the Universal?

2011-09-02T08:52:00.000-07:00

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?

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.

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.

Is Coping Wrong?

2011-08-28T21:10:00.000-07:00

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"?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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".

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.

Brain/Mind and Human Needs

2011-08-23T10:57:00.001-07:00

It 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

Death, Suicide and the Person

2011-08-22T10:39:00.000-07:00

I 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Religon and Philosophy......

2011-08-20T07:58:00.000-07:00

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.

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"?

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!

"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!

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.

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.

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.

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!

Requirements of Leaders

2011-08-16T07:41:00.000-07:00

Atlas Shrugged
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

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!

Relationship, Values, and Integrity

2011-08-03T06:36:00.000-07:00

Ayn Rand
The virtue involved in helping those one loves is not “selflessness” or “sacrifice,” but integrity. Integrity is loyalty to one’s convictions and values; it is the policy of acting in accordance with one’s values, of expressing, upholding and translating them into practical reality. “The Ethics of Emergencies,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 46

This can only be true if one values "love" as an "ultimate value". Relationship with those that have different values must be mutual compromise, or dissolving one's association to such a relationship. If the principle or value is too important to compromise without loosing "self-respect", then, compromise is asking the impossible. Self-respect is the foundation of integrity.

No one should be required to "help" in those areas they do not believe in. And no one that loves another would ask them to "help" in the areas they do not believe in.

Never Mind Liberal Democracy; God Has the Right...

2011-07-24T09:48:00.000-07:00

Today's sermon was again about Jonah. and Jonah's life being a life to teach Christians, not about the "spiritual", but the ethical. The world is to stand at attention by the ethics of the Christian in the midst of suffering, because "God" has that right to humble us. ("God" is understood n many ways, but in this sense it is leadership. The State has the right to define one's life, because the State has the right to be "useful" for and by God. Or some would believe that Church leaders have the right and duty to "develop" the spirituality of their "flock". But, both the State and Church do not have a right in our culture to determine another citizen's life.)

In ancient times, the "sea" was viewed as the danger. The sea was a wide expanse with no knowledge of what was "out there". There was no way of escape when one was "out at sea", except to get out of the sea. Jonah was thrown out at sea and swallowed by a whale. (I'm wondering if in the pastor's mind, the whale is "the church", as the ark was in the story about Noah?) The sailors didn't have an explainaton about what happend except to see it as a tragic event. But, "the Christian" (Jonah) is to see it as "God's training ground", to humble him. He is to submit, not resist, or rebel, then "God will use it" to testify to those who are not christians. I find this a little simplistic, as it requires Jonah to accept his circumstances without any question or answer about "God and his faithfulness". If such a real situaton occurs, the pastor cannot ascertan that "God" will come through when Jonah life had been tragically thrown into an unsafe place! No, all of Jonah's life is to be "put on the chair" of "faith".....no understandng, only pain. And accept this as from the "hand of God"!!!

How odd that the pastor can theologize, while he says theology doesn't work for the world, only the practicalities of a life "well lived". (Is he seeking the "wider frame" of theology, so the Church will have relevance, again?) Yet, he proposes that theology is to bring comfort to Jonah (the Christian). Jonah is to believe that "God has pre-ordained the narrow and confined circumstances of life to benefit the building of the church and to humble Jonah! (God crucifies his children and sacrifices them on the altar of his "self glorificaton" so that others might also worshp his "SELF"! Isn't it really the Church who wants "worship"?). This confining situaton or narrow place is to build "Christlike character" in Jonah...because the Christian isn't to lead, but serve. Don't ask questions, just obey the tyranncal government that is over you. THAT is "God's love" for you, because you should have no choice about your life. It is pre-destined!!! Christians aren't to seek justice, but love mercy. So they don't stand against those that put them in narrow places, they humbly submit!!!( And the Church is doing it to further their interests at your costs, but never mind their ethics, it is your own personal ethics that is important!)

I can believe that those that are under tyrannical government don't have a "life". These have no choices, are they to submit to this type of government? Or are the to seek a liberal democracy that allows liberty of conscience, as to one's life and values? Those that are humanitarians seek this as their "life calling". Those that are behaviorialist seek to conditon the "self" toward the behavoir they deem as important.

It seems to me that those that want to experiment on "The Christian" (or the religious) or those that want to utilize "The Christian" aren't about liberty, but about scientific investigation. And those that theologize such understakings aren't being ethical, but requiring "The Christian" to serve under such leadership. Is that ethical? Are those who seek to use others for their "ends" being ethical? or serving their own interests? Choice must be a value if one wants to maintan a free and open society, otherwise some will be duped under the tyranny of the few and this was not our Founder's vision. We are to be "equal under law" and that means that our liberty of life and values were to be freely chosen, not determined by government or any other elite class!

A Quote About Statism.....

2011-07-20T07:29:00.000-07:00

The State is created by the individuals. It is fashioned and refashioned by them at their own will and pleasure … for their use and service, and when it does not satisfy their requirements, they pull it to pieces and reconstruct it. Men throughout their lives are included in many wholes.… Schools, colleges, clubs, associations, joint stock companies, cooperative companies, political parties, village or town organisations, and then lastly comes national organisation or the State; but in all these cases, the organisation is created by the individuals themselves.… [How] is it possible for any constructed and reconstructed things to be greater than those who construct it and reconstruct it? To indulge in any such imagination is to imitate the carver of idols, who, when with his own hands he has fashioned the log of wood, falls on his knees before it and calls it his god. (Free Life, July 1898)

What Makes for Your Values?

2011-07-20T05:16:00.000-07:00

Most people don't recognize their own values, unless they are religious or are educated about this in their expertise. Americans, for the most part, take their values for granted and don't think about it, because we live in a free society. But, what makes for someone's values? Social conditioning, and personal interests are the basic foundations for values.

Social conditioning is how one has been raised within a specific context. What were the parental values, and how were they imparted to the child? What was the specific culture the child was raised and how did the family function? These are values that are not thought about, but are reflected in one's understanding about money, relationships, and "self". These are internalized values that make it difficult to "see" and sometime hinders communication because of the emotional association of these values. But, these "social values" are not the only driving force in a person's life.

Personal interests also form a person's values. These values are goals, desires and opinions about "greatest value". These are values that are more consciously held, because they drive a person's educational goals and job interests.

I recently watched a movie that I used in another post about a journalist who was pusuing a Pulitzer by revealing a CIA agent and it is pertinent here. The journalist's revelation exposed the President and his indecretions, as well as revealing information about this particular CIA agent. The journalist was holding government accountable by the expose'. But, the government saw it as an intrusion into their ability to function within international complexities. The journalist was held in contempt of court, because she would not reveal her source of information. When given the opportunity to be released from jail and save her marriage, she refused, because of her commitment and value of "Free Speech" and Freedom of the Press". This was a noble endeavor, but the CIA's life and purpose was NO LESS valuable.

The CIA agent seeks to prevent national security breaches. They seek to give information so that decisions can be made that will protect citizens, the military and other dignitaries. These are valued servants of the public's interests. And they should be applauded.

Everyone will have different priorities in a free and open society and these all must be protected, as without them, we will cease having a free society. Those that have internalized social values, must stop and think before they judge another's difference, as to whether those differences are undermining society at large, or are just different priorities of interests. Appreciate the differences, and move on. Don't make issues of things that support an open and free society because of your own internalized differences or personal interests.

"Providence" and Government

2011-07-19T07:50:00.000-07:00

Does it make you "ill" when people that are adults believe in "Providence"? It does me. I think all meaning or interpretation is a matter of correlation in one's mind to past memories and present preception of oneself, as well as past perceptions of oneself.

Humanists and scientists are trying to understand what makes for alturistic concern. They have found alturism in animal behavior and wonder what makes some people compassionate, and others, not so much. Some reasearch has revealed that children that were not nurtured as infants tend to not be as compassionate. There is information that suggests there are differences between the sexes. And, then, there is the chemical imbalances in the brain that make for mental illnesses. What does compassion have to do with "Providence", you ask?

"Providence" understands or interprets happenings as "God's intervention" in the world. These "happenings" are the result of people who experience "God" through others' acts of compassion. And science it seeking to understand if compassion can be "learned" behavior, as well. Can the physical properties of the brain and one's perception be changed over time with "conditioning"? Obviously, animals respond to discipline and learn how to behave. Authoritarian religions, as well as Totalitarian States believe that "discipline" is needed to bring about the 'salvation of mankind".

Atheistic States and authoritarian Religions believe that social conditioning is needed to protect against 'savagery" and can provide a "better society". This is the reason for propaganda and manipulation of the public or indoctrination in relgious climates. There is no real reverence for an individual's life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. We are a collective, so "individuality" is a threat to progress and conformity! Scientific materialism or religious conformity is much too important. Some scientists believe that even our experience of art and beauty is a result of stimuli to our physical properties, while religions see these "expressions' to be "useful" for "glorifying God". What makes for an artist's imagination? And is the artist's imagination as productive in a regimented and oppressive environment?

Religions have brought solace and comfort to those under authoritarian regimes, because of the need for the human to experience their own "reality". But, religions have also oppressed as much as any absolute State. The sense of "self" and one's own control of their life, is an important aspect of "feeling free". None of us are totally free, as we live under governments, and societies, and if not, we all live under the constraints of natural resources.

Natural resources are seen as limited unless science provides new ways or making them or limiting our use of them. And the environmental consequences to such use is also of concern. The question, then becomes who, what, and how will the policy decisions be made , how will they be prioritized, when there are so many variables? These are the conflicts within an open and free society. Those that hold the power make the determinations about policy and this is where "Providence" is an absurd understanding about life and what happens.

Unless one wants to affirm and confirm a Totalitarian State, where there is not "representation", then one must understand and see that it is "the people" who will vote, petition and make the differences to "outcomes" in their government, which isn't about "Providence", but about responsibility and concern.

"Providence" is a term useful for those that believe in authoritarianism! And good government is NOT authoritarian, not at all.

A Free Society....

2011-07-18T11:02:00.000-07:00

Because my thinking is going along the lines of our society, liberty of conscience, and "group think", I am re-posting some quotes that grasp the essence of a free society.....

“Society exists only as a mental concept; in the real world there are only individuals.” Oscar Wilde

“Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness Thomas Paine

“In any free society, the conflict between social conformity and individual liberty is permanent, unresolvable, and necessary” Kathleen Norris

The definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular.” Adlai E. Stevenson

Groups Are Powerful Forces That Undermine Our Liberty

2011-07-18T09:38:00.000-07:00

I am concerned over our liberties, because groups have framed and formed their arguments which have political persuasion and power. This is the basis of our culture wars, and will be the demise of our rationality as a nation!

It was known that the Germans used experiments on the Jews, as they dismissed the Jew as worthy of "life". This is the case now for the Jew concerning Islam!

Gay rights activists seek to put their "tolerance messages" in our classrooms and religious groups seek to claim their rights, as well.

We are a diverse nation that was based on the principle of individual liberties. No one person had more power before the law, than any other. Now, groups demand tolerance, where our nation becomes a quadmire of differences of opinion and values of commitment. Groups have more power than individual voices. This should not be, unless tolerance gives us no right to judge or make determinations of any kind...about one's life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!

We need to dissolve powerful lobbyists and make a way back to the local, where voices are known, heard and understood, rather than enlarging to global interests and concerns that devalue our nation and demean our values of liberty!

A Warning Worth Listening To.....

2011-07-18T08:33:00.000-07:00

For the most part, this blog has been my attempt to process, vent, share, and create. This has been a "healthy thing" for me, for I am doing it for myself, not performing for someone else. Performance is what I'd like to focus on.

Performance means that one is expected to meet a certain goal, standard, or accomplishment. This is all well and good, IF these are things one wants to accomplish for oneself. One does a job because one believes in the vision of the employer, or one wants to earn a decent living. And for the most part, we can choose where we work and what we do. These are blessings of a free society!

When performance become demands whether of one's employer, "community", or spouse, then one has to question and reflect on whether the costs of these demands outweigh the benefit of the relationship. Move on, if these demands become hinderances to you as a person.

But, when demands become sanctioned by "God", then one "ups the ante" so to speak. Those that believe that what they do is important to "God", or that "God" has required "such and such", are going to make demands on those around them. And pity the people that are "pegged" to certain endeavors in the "Name of God". You will be damned if you do perform and damned if you don't perform. But, you must decide for yourself.

This is the warning; Get out, Get away from such people as fast as you can, for theirs is THE important job in requiring others to "get on board" to their "God project" and they will be authoritarian in carrying out such propositions. Why wouldn't they be, if they believe this is "God's will"???? Get out whoever you are. It is not about you becoming a unique individual or accomplishing your own personal goals or defining your values, but it is performing under a "speicified moral image". One cannot have self respect in sacrificing oneself on the altar of another's conscience.

So, heed my warning and get out. Cults are authoritarian, limiting, controlling, manipulative, and the foundation is "group think", "group speak" and "group behavior". If there is no negotiation, respect for you as a person, where you can agree to disagree, or leave, then, it is to your best interests and others best interests to leave and warn others.

Church Gets Less Interesting and Threatening to the Personal

2011-07-17T08:48:00.000-07:00

The message this morning was an emphasis on self-reflection, which was "well taken" and the pastor had some good observations about what the world would say to the Church. But, the whole idea of the message was a stumbling block to me. Why?

The message was taken from Jonah. The pastor spoke to the Church, as if the Church was Jonah. Jonah was the "prophet of God" who was running from what "God had called him to do". In the process of running away from God, Jonah causes difficulties to others, due to God's anger shown in a storm, which is capsizing the ship.

Though our minds look for causes, Biblical imagery makes for a pre-sceintific view of reality. When the storm came, it was caused by the "supernatural God" due to "sin". The unbelieving sailors were seeking an answer to their "weather problem" and calling out to "their gods". Jonah is disobeying "God's will" by not sharing "the Gospel". Some believers still believe that there is a direct correlation of cause and effect to "God". This is a primitive understanding of the weather, and an 'intervening God". And understanding "Jonah's predicament" as a direct "message from God" is a little presumptuous, to say the least.

The pastor's point in the sermon was "well taken", though, as he suggested that believers have as much to learn from the "unconverted" as the converted think they have to offer the "unconverted". But, the pastor was still suggesting that there is something "more" to Christianity, than humanism, or humanity. The difference is "holiness", which is a perfection in/of love.

I wonder how this pastor sees this perfection coming about? "Love" is a personal word, and is not a value or does not function in the political realm. The real world functions on "power", and the pastor suggested that those that serve "God" should do so at "great sacrifice". A "God" that demands human sacrifice isn't becoming to me. Such a "God" is a primitive view of "political power". This seems oddly "out of place", when one talks of 'love". He mentioned John Wesley's attempt to convert the 'noble Savages" (the Indians) and his experience at Aldersgate. He suggested that there was some "preparatory work" that had to be done in Wesley's heart before Wesley would be open to an experience such as Aldersgate. The preparation required for Wesley was "failure" in his missionary attempt to convert the Indians.

I find that "perfection" itself is wrongly focused, for whenever one finds themselves "perfected", then is there no more need to grow or become? This is a dangerous idea and belief because it compels those that believe this way to "perform", rather than "be", besides the ideas behind supernaturalism and an intervening "God'.

But, those that believe that they are "called" to a "Divine Destiny" are also a danger, because these believe that what they have to accomplish is mandated by "God Almighty" and it is THEIR responsibility and duty to follow through!!! This belief can damage the peace of the nation, as these will be passionate, and convicted about their "mission". Such zeal was never in our Founder's intent or persona!!! The Founders were level headed and rational.

The bottom line for me, is that people are people. All of us seek significance and value. Some of us find it in religion, and when we do, our identity is caught up in such beliefs. Others find their significance or value within our family or our jobs. Humans are seeking meaning. And "life" in a free society should allow everyone to find meaning however they want to. This is the value of Liberty. And such liberty will bring the nation "happiness" and peace, because we all are agreeing that we might differ in how we answer those questions about meaning and purpose!!!Otherwise, we will find ourselves warring against ourselves and destroying the very thing that allows us the liberty to pursue our own meaning!!!

When the "We" Makes an Insignificant "Me"

2011-07-15T10:28:00.000-07:00

Ayn RandThe word "We" is as lime poured over men, which sets and hardens to stone, and crushes all beneath it, and that which is white and that which is black are lost equally in the grey of it. It is the word by which the depraved steal the virtue of the good, by which the weak steal the might of the strong, by which the fools steal the wisdom of the sages. Anthem, Chapter 11

All humans live amongst others, but their attitude about life and what makes for meaning is what makes for the differences. Some see the "We" as an attitude of "Comaradie", "Team", "Care", which make for "society", "company", and "organization". But such thinking can enable, as much as enoble, when individuals are not taking their own responsibilty for and about their life. Instead, they compromise, or ignore their own values so that others might not be "left out". But, in doing so, they loose their own distinctiveness. And soceity suffers for it.

The other night we watched a movie about a woman that pursued a Pulitzer by publishing a story about another mother in her child's school, who was a CIA agent. In the process, she went to jail for not revealing her source and lost her marriage. Her lawyer suggested that she could "go free" if only she would hold the "traitor" accountable. One wondered during the film why she didn't take his advice, but understood she was standing on the principle of "free speech"! She didn't want to set a precedent against "free speech".

Where do the lines lie in "free speech" versus "national security"? These are questions that concern Contitutional Law.

Should she have gained her freedom and hold the informer accountable? Or should she have held to her ultimate value for her journalism career, of "free speech"?

If this character had been "the concerned citizen", or the "soceital moralist", then she would have had a "focus" on the "we". This is all well and good, but there were more important issues in her mind to uphold for the nation and for the media, in general. Freedom of the Press is of pivotal import to maintaina free society!! So, I applaud her courage, determination and conviction!!!

Bodies As Private Property

2011-07-13T16:43:00.000-07:00

I wonder if the next political struggle will be over whether a person has the right to his body (in all its personhood). What and why would I think this is the next crucial discussion for America?

Traditionally, Americans have believed in private property rights and the division of the private and public. These rights/priviledges are what Americans define as Liberty. The government does not have the right to intrude into personal information or take one's personal property. The debate has been framed most recently around "taxation". But, what about other social issues?

If one is granted religious liberty, whether one chooses to worship a "Divine Being" and how, does it also not follow that a person should be allowed the right to choose what he does or does not do with and to his body? "Body rights" would grant the individual the right to make decisions about healthcare. Government could not demand or intrude upon one's personal decisions concerning one's body.

Assisted suicide is one social issue that concerns the terminally ill, and their right to decide not to suffer or put their families in emotional or financial crisis because of such an illness.

The issue about personal decision making is crucial because government would not and could not make a personal choice about value, as to quality/quantity in life choices.

The outcry against universalized healthcare has been based on such rationale, I think. Americans don't like to be told what to do with their lives. We are "independents". We have believed in liberty of conscience concerning religious concerns, should we not be entitled to make the choices about our own bodies, as personal property?

Bodies should be considered one's personal and private property. It should be no one's business what one chooses to do with healthcare concerns.

Individual Interests, and Society's Welfare

2011-07-11T07:32:00.000-07:00

Ludwig von Mises Institute‎"Man becomes a social being not in sacrificing his own concerns for the sake of a mythical Moloch, society, but in aiming at an improvement in his own welfare." Ludwig von Mises (1949), Human Action

Those that believe otherwise put society before the individual. Society is made up of individuals who act within a social network. Such societies are free societies that so not seek to circumvent the individual's desire to prosper in all areas of his life!

"Who I Am"

2011-07-11T03:43:00.000-07:00

"Who I Am" has new meaning this morning after yesterday's park visit with my grandaughter.

"Who I Am" has meant for me in the past; "fallen", "saved by grace", "hopeless apart from Christ", "a mistake", "a product of divorce", "a wife", "a mother" and the many other temporary roles that have been mine thoroughout my life.

Science is bringing us new information all the time about our physical world, and now, I am understanding more and more how the physical world impacts "Who I Am".

Yesterday, my grandaughter had asked an important person in her life to go to the park with her. After a little while, I also went to the park to visit and watch the kids play. But, to my dismay, my grandaughter and her cousin had a "conflict of interest", and came running up to us. Hannah was distraught, but before she reached the park bench where we were sitting, Hannah's cousin had given 'her side of the story".

Without even hearing Hannah's side, this "idolized adult" stroked the hair of the cousin and reprimanded Hannah over the other child's percieved exclusion. Hannah was absolutely devastated, for when she would try to "tell her side", she was told she could not be understood unless she calmed down. All the while, she was being excluded from telling "her side of the story". She perceived the situation as "shaming" to her "person", as Hannah has an honest nature and this was not being affirmed.

When I tried to get Hannah's side, this adult reprimanded me, by saying that Hannah had no business excluding her cousin. Hannah kept saying how she was only trying to "make a new friend", that "cousins were not friends", and that her cousin had pinched her.

In her little mind, categories had not expanded to include different roles. Though she has played with her cousin since birth, her "social side" wanted to expand and befriend the strangers around her. She is an extrovert, this is "who she is". The more she kept defending herself and her desire to make "a new friend", the more this adult kept telling her it was unkind to exclude others and not to get "so hysterical". I was mortified, as I didn't know how to defend Hannah, except to try to help Hannah see an expansion to her categories of "cousin" and "friend", but Hannah perceived my attempt to expand her categories as "shaming". This was never my intent, and it reminded me of the time I tried to give different names to those she loved, when she was only three. Her immaturity was by no means "sinful".

What could have been only a minor incidence of childhood "trauma", had become a major "message" to Hannah's "person". I don't want my grandaughter to think or feel as if "who she is" is "bad innately" and she is in a social environment that will suggest this ego "framing" for her.

On the way back from the park, her Opa attempted to walk along side of her, but she kept telling him that "no one loved her", except her Mommy and Daddy and she didn't want to walk with him, an unusual response from her. She only wanted her Daddy to "come get her". So, her Opa called her Daddy to walk with her back to our house. This suggested to me, that she had internalized a lot of the "guilt" and responsibility for the situation. It is called "shame" and it is an "internal message" about "Who I Am".

Hannah felt betrayed by most everyone that she had loved and trusted in this minor childhood "trauma", because her innate extrovertedness was percieved as "sinful" for excluding another, while her cousin's "sin" of pinching was never addressed.

My daughter has expressed her desire to reconsider how she is approaching Hannah's childishness and I am glad. Hannah is the oldest child and has already taken the "back seat' to her brother's physical problems, and her younger sister's "immediate needs". Hannah's immediate family has been "dysfunctional" in her mind, as her Daddy has been gone every week since March to the "Police Academy". Since she is going into kindergarten, it is important for Hannah to feel confident about "who she is", supported by her whole family, not shamed and demoralized.

All parents have these "encounters" with childishness, but religious ones exasperate the problems by labelling "what is normal" as "sinful". "The Cosmos" (or "God") is displeased with the chld's normal tendencies. Instead of approaching childishness as a stage of immaturity and seeking to guide and reorient the child,; the child is "scared, shamed, and scarred" by messages of "immense importance". The child's needs are minimized, while the "Cosmic God" is immortalized and idolized, by such "child sacrifice"!

I am no child psychologist, but I am a grandparent that has "lived and learned" and loves her grandaughter. My grandaughter should never be "shamed" into submission or obedience. She should obey with the knowledge that doing so, only brings her own happiness, not some "God". Love should be understood and experienced as desiring the best for "Who I Am" apart from any "God". This is what I hope my grandaughter come to know and understand.

Pragmatic Solutions Don't Answer the Ideals

2011-07-07T08:57:00.000-07:00

On another blog site, Experimental Theology, it was suggested that boundaries are a problem. I imagine that this is the way people are trying to "connect" across cultural, and racial boundaries. It is the "usefulness" of the Church's message of "Christ". (A rose by any other name is just as sweet!). And such image/myth making is how our Founders understood and formed our government.

The question of whether one internalizes their culture in such a way that one's very identity is compromised and whether one's "self" is rooted in such a way that universalizes such myths, and destroy or damage "self". Can one who has gone beyond a "group identity" give up their "self"? This is the question of alturism. It obviously has been done, but is everyone predisposed to alturistic "service"? Is it an innate nature that needs challenge to become "alturistic", or is such a challenge futile because one's tendency is genetically determined? These are questions that will transform our understanding of psychotherapy itself.

I tend to think that one's racial and cultural background is internalized to such an extent that without being exposed to a "wider world", there is no hope for any change. And I also think that it is really myth that holds the "universalization" that is necessary for "alturistic concerns". But, I also believe that there is a tension between one's genetic nature and one's cultural examples. Some might not identity with others, but be independent in their thinking and being in the world.

Mystics aren't logical in their thinking, but romantic/transcendental. "Images" make for meaning in such minds/brains. Such thinking can be useful to "sell goods" such as marketers do, but is not the way to govern. Governance needs "real life" solutions to "real life" problems, not image making images that give some ungrounded hope about tomorrow. Politicians use such salesmanship to get elected, but how many prove themselves to really be true to their compaign promises. Such is the reality of the "real world". The real world is not based on "ideal solutions" but pragmatic ones.

Our Founders recognized that man was made for "ideals" to hope and dream. This was their "promise in their creation of our government" where all men are created equal. But practically speaking, when one has a job in the real world, all are not equal in position, nor in abilities. Therefore, "equal" has a limited application.

Internationalists would like to see our nation-state export such democratic ideals. But, the reality is that we have needs at home right now, that make it pragmatically improbable if not impossibe to meets "everyone's need" for democracy or humanitarian aid...There are just too many problems for one nation (or the West) to address! Politicians are trying to come to solutions that will pacify the Internationalist and the Localist, the essentialists and the non-essentialist. And scientists are wondering if "myth" might be a pragmatic solution to "real world" problems. Others think that the problem is religion itself, that uses myth to promote such "self-annilhilation" or "alturistic concern".

Relgion and Political Power Subvert Individual Liberty

2011-07-06T10:10:00.000-07:00

Ayn Rand

America’s inner contradiction was the altruist-collectivist ethics. Altruism is incompatible with freedom, with capitalism and with individual rights. One cannot combine the pursuit of happiness with the moral status of a sacrificial animal.
“Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 95

The religious and the authoritarian political power still believes in sacrifices! These believe that humans are made for some other purpose than their own pursuits, values and interests....one names the human;'s purposes as 'God", and the other acts as "God"!

Reason, as the Basis for Morality

2011-07-05T09:08:00.000-07:00

Atlas Shrugged

This country—the product of reason—could not survive on the morality of sacrifice. It was not built by men who sought self-immolation or by men who sought handouts. It could not stand on the mystic split that divorced man’s soul from his body. It could not live by the mystic doctrine that damned this earth as evil and those who succeeded on earth as depraved.
P3C7

It is important to keep in mind that one's work is one's own effort to "survive" and sustain one's family. Whatever one chooses to do to earn resources to support their family, must be personal/private property. Otherwise, Statists will "use" it for those that circumvent the nation's economic viability and the taxation that goes to underwrite such programs always is wasted and wasteful.

"Cause and effect", which is the way our mind seems to "work", is affirmed in a society where people are rewarded for their work, by compensation.

Today, people are trying to "sell" compassion, so the State has a means to support a system that undermines the productivity and creativity of its own people.

Is Religion Outdated, or the "Old Answer"?

2011-07-03T20:23:00.000-07:00

"The taming and domestication of religion is one of the unceasing chores of civilization. " Christopher Hitchens

Do you agree? Or do you think that without religion, man is "lost", either literally in an afterlife, or metaphorically, in the 'here and now"? One truly believes in "God" as a personal being, while the other is a more "socialized" undestanding. Is the socialized understanding against what our Enlightened Founders understood to be the basis of our liberty?

Does it take religion to get man to "behave himself"? Or is man made to develop morally speaking? And how is that to be accomplished? Is such "moral development" an innate nature, or is it something that is culturally defined and determined?

Is man only a blank slate that society and his environment "form"? and what and how does individual experience "form" or correlate to society's impact?

Does man's environment impact him physically, or does his physical pre-disposition impact his "understanding"? Science has determined that liberal and conservative bents are innate/genetic or pre-determined...How much is pre-determined by our genes...and how is this pre-determination influenced/impacted by one's environment...and how?

These are questions that science is studying, and bringing in new results and information that will impact the future of our understanding of religion... amd society at large! We must stay informed...

Faith versus Reason or Faith in Reason?

2011-06-29T05:29:00.000-07:00

Ayn Rand

Self-esteem is reliance on one’s power to think. It cannot be replaced by one’s power to deceive. The self-confidence of a scientist and the self-confidence of a con man are not interchangeable states, and do not come from the same psychological universe. The success of a man who deals with reality augments his self-confidence. The success of a con man augments his panic.
Return of the Primitive, 181

Ayn Rand states that it is better to use one's mind for a "self-confident" stance toward reality, than to rely on simplistic trust that depends on a "con game". Those that believe are "conning themselves" to be dependent, and hindering much of what could become of their lives!

Enough Said.....

2011-06-27T09:26:00.000-07:00

Ayn Rand

To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living.
For the New Intellectual, 128

The Need for an Objective Law to Uphold a Free Society

2011-06-19T12:48:00.000-07:00

[A]ll laws must be based on individual rights and aimed at their protection.

“The Nature of Government,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

Under objective law, what is the fundamental difference in the scope of private action versus government action?

A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted.

“The Nature of Government,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

[W]hen men are caught in the trap of non-objective law, when their work, future and livelihood are at the mercy of a bureaucrat’s whim, when they have no way of knowing what unknown “influence” will crack down on them for which unspecified offense, fear becomes their basic motive, if they remain in the industry at all—and compromise, conformity, staleness, dullness, the dismal grayness of the middle-of-the-road are all that can be expected of them. Independent thinking does not submit to bureaucratic edicts, originality does not follow “public policies,” integrity does not petition for a license, heroism is not fostered by fear, creative genius is not summoned forth at the point of a gun. Non-objective law is the most effective weapon of human enslavement: its victims become its enforcers and enslave themselves.

“Vast Quicksands,” The Objectivist Newsletter

An objective law protects a country’s freedom; only a non-objective law can give a statist the chance he seeks: a chance to impose his arbitrary will—his policies, his decisions, his interpretations, his enforcement, his punishment or favor—on disarmed, defenseless victims. He does not have to exercise his power too frequently nor too openly; he merely has to have it and let his victims know that he has it; fear will do the rest.

“Antitrust: The Rule of Unreason,” The Voice of Reason

The Principles of a Free Society!

2011-06-17T08:46:00.000-07:00

Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness — Principles of a Free Society

principlesofafreesociety.com

The Tyranny of Religious Authority

2011-06-17T08:37:00.000-07:00

Ayn Rand

For centuries, the mystics of spirit had existed by running a protection racket—by making life on earth unbearable, then charging you for consolation and relief, by forbidding all the virtues that make existence possible, then riding on the shoulders of your guilt, by declaring production and joy to be sins, then collecting blackmail from the sinners.
Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 153

Is Historical Evolution the Way to Evaluate Everything....?

2011-06-15T08:50:00.000-07:00

Evolution is the way that some evaluate everything, but is this the right srtategy for "human flourishing? That is really the question, when one assumes that the "natural" describes everything...as in "wholism" or historicism. The difficulty in thinking in "wholistic" terms, is the problem of "thinking", itself, because "wholism" isn't logical, because everything is interdependent. That becomes a problem for liberty of conscience, because strategy is imperative to "measure success". "Thinking" is only for those who are the elites, others are to "trust and obey" and "do their duty".

Wholism is Eastern thinking, as paradox is embraced, it is dialetical thinking, where a synthesis of opposites creates a supposedly "better" outcome. It is Marxist economics in "human form", or "humans" heralding "Marxist" economical theory or equality. It is the "use" of the "poor" for the sake of "eltie"s "outcomes" and plans...

There is a philosophical dilemma between an "elite" and a "equal" society. This isn't resolvable, if one really wants to affirm the individual, as the individual must determine his own course for his life. But, when some "elite" determines (or strategically plans) how goals are to be accomplished, "the people" aren't enjoined. Theirs is the "right" of serving the interests of "the common good", for universal purposes and human evolution, both personal and corporate.. Egalitarianism is an "ideal", but not practical, as "leadership" is needed if any "goal or outcome" is to be accomplished! Therefore, choose your leaders wisely, as you will suffer the consequences!

The problem is "who is to be the leader" and how do those leaders "see" or understand "elite" and "equal"? Do they believe in liberty of conscience, where individuals are allowed the right to choose, or do they believe in a pre-determining "force" or "wholistic agenda" driven by ignoring those they lead? That is of interest "to all people" who believe and affirm "equality and justice"....as group identity will not lead us in the right direction, as it doesn't leave room for dissent, free thought, or difference....the globe cannot give us any universal..And those that believe in "wholism" are just "selling a bill of good" to those they want to manipulate toward what they believe is "human progress", and human development......Terms need to be defined, if there is to be any "consensus" about meaning.....and meaning is everything in living in a free society!!

Groups and "Others"...

2011-06-12T13:36:00.000-07:00

I find it disturbingly paradoxical to talk about "the other"," the Other" or "Othering". Why?

Groups form their identities by various distinctives. These are cultural differences, which define values. The problem comes when values conflict with another "group", which they inevitably will. Focusing on these differences and using them as forms of "entitlement" does not help those of a minority race to "overcome". But, it enables an entitlement mentality. Ethnic identities are a biological fact, but we don't have to promote the idea that their social status deserves special treatment! This is a nonesstialist position.

I read recently where the Academy has gone from "the other" to "the Other" to "Othering". It seems to me that "the other" is a particular individual that is different from you. "The Other" is another group, whether defined by differences of interest or values, or a "people group", while "othering" is an action taken toward "the other", and/or "The Other". Discrimination is about distinguishing, while "othering" is looking at commonalities. Both are useful, but must be understood within the proper "frame.

Groups are dangerous to individuation, as they do pressure individuals to conform to certain standards, or values. While this is good for children, it can be deadly for adults. Deindividuation has illustrated how group behavior all too easily becomes "herd mentality" and "mob behavior". Mobs create unrest and undermine the ability to think critically for oneself. It is peer pressure, plain and simple. Such "group think" is the group's "protection", security or defense against "foreign bodies" and is useful to maintain their survival. But, "group think" can also provide a cover for oppressive government or abusive dictators to defend their "territory". In these cases, propaganda can be used to manipulate and marginalize those that ask questions, or think "outside the box". Social conformity, in these cases, create a society where oppression rules over creativity, and individuation.

An identity is formed by one's values, which must be underwritten by liberty, not paternalistic government, that "tells you what those values MUST be", in areas that really do not make a difference in societal flourishing. Otherwise, the individual is left without the ability to choose his vocation, or compete for a particular job. Americans have valued this form of individual liberty. While it is true that not everyone has the same capacity to perform every job, it is also true that there is a wide variety of jobs or interests that should be open to the individual in a free society.

In America, the States determine many social norms or values, such as abortion, gay marriage, legal ages for marriage, and other such "standards". These "standards" are the "cultural norm" for a particular local culture. But, at the national level, diplomacy is always negotiation of differences between or among different interests, cultural values, or standards of behavior. And these are determined by international law. It does become problematic when certain cultures do not allow liberty of conscience to the individual, as to religious conviction/claims. These cultures have been given "special priviledge" or exception, to the Universal Human Rights Declaration, which is disturbing to the nonessentialist. The West has paid a high costs in tolerating "intolerance".

Both postmodernity and multiculturalism are anti-thetical to rationality. Rationality is the only way or means of finding a place for "law and order". Otherwise, laws will be conflicting and confusing, because they will defend a particular culture, while discriminating against other cultures....or individual values.. An exclusivist culture defends a particular Tradition, while an individualist defends biological propensity/genetic identity. It is probably that both social conditioning AND genetic identity make for the uniqueness of individuals across the globe. And reason, not tradition, is the only way to understand those differences.

I am only beginning to think through these issues, so I can form my own opinion, and not be led by a paternalistic "authority", that limits my ability to come to my own conclusions.

A Message on Marriage (and other kinds of relationships)

2011-06-11T10:08:00.000-07:00

I bought my husband a card a few years ago, because it said what I believe about marriage. And I plan on giving the same card to my son's friend today, as he embarks on "a challenge of his lifetime"! All healthy relationships are defined, I believe, on some or most of these principles, so I thought I would share them, as they are of important value to me.

Marriage is (by Barbara Cage)

A commitment. Its success
doesn't depend on circumstances,
feelings, or moods-but on
two people who are loyal to
each other and the vows they
took on their wedding day....

A relationship where two people
must listen, compromise, and respect.
It's an arrangement that requires a
multitude of decisions to be made
together. Listening, respecting, and
compromising go a long way toward
keeping peace and harmony.

A union in which two people learn
form their mistakes, accept each
other's faults, and willingly adjust
bahaviors that need to be changed.
It's caring enough about each other
to work throught disappointing and
hurtful times and believing in the
love that brought you together in the
first place.

Patience and forgiveness. It's being
open and honest, thoughtful and kind.
Marriage means talking things out,
making necessary changes, and forgiving
each other. It's unconditional love at it's
most understanding and vulnerable-
love supports, comforts, and is
determined to triumph over every challenge
and adversity.

Marriage is a partnership of two unique
people who bring out the very best in each
other and who know that even though
they are wonderful as individuals
they are even better together.

Except for the personal terms, i.e. forgiveness, disappointing and hurtful times,I believe that this kind of commitment could also be applied to other kinds of relationships (business, and diplomacy). The personal terms are to be replaced by the "rule of law", which is considered respect in a civil society.

"Self", as the Center to Self Awareness

2011-06-09T07:13:00.000-07:00

Atlas Shrugged

‎"Let a man corrupt his values and his view of existence, let him profess that love is not self-enjoyment but self-denial, that virtue consists, not of pride, but of pity or pain or weakness or sacrifice, that the noblest love is born, not of admiration, but of charity, not in response to values, but in response to flaws—and he will have cut himself in two."
S2C4

There is something insincere about people who try to patronize others. But, perhaps, their patronizing attitude is due to their superior opinion of themselves as the "saviors of the world".

It is imagined that one cannot be a "Christian" if one has concern for oneself, one's own family or cultural values. That is absurd. Christian has as many meanings as there are cultures, because Christiainity is compliant to different values, primarily, I believe, due to Protestantism. "Faith" can mean anything and does in American culture. I think we should seek to keep it that way, otherwise, we will limit America's foremost value, liberty.

The above quote suggests that to defy one's values and one's commitment to them, is to "cut oneself in two". Why? Because men are made to make choices about what they respect, admire and want to accomplish for themselves and their families. This is a motivation to set goals. And goals to accomplish inevitably lead to benefitting society.

When one is prone to be taught to "feel sorry for" and pity, then one is not respecting, or admiring another. And this "feeling" of pity/compassion is demeaning and demoralizing to those that are also meant to set goals and excel.

Expectations in America are individualized, so there is not "one way" to view life and its purposes, or value. And that is as it should be, otherwise, some willl always be defining their life by another's need. And that leaves a co-dependent relationship that is not healthy or beneficial to either party.

Value what you value and know why you value it. This is the only way to "own your own life" and defeat "class warfare" and give your own life purpose and meaning.

Free Speech and the State

2011-05-26T09:05:00.000-07:00

Any limitation on free speech is wrong, because, historically, guess what, it's the most offensive free speech that has been the most important, the most valuable to moving society forward." - Arvin Vohra

This is an important issue for the State! It is only when we impose manner, or opinion into law, that things get oppressive. Parents, teachers, and community leaders impact children and young adults, which inevitably makes for a polite society or a crude and crass one!

Let's Don't Give Up the Ship!

2011-05-25T14:41:00.000-07:00

America is unique among nations, as we have no aristocracy, at least in principle. The Founding Fathers were aristocratic as to education, but they defined a nation by her laws, and principle, not by unaccountable power. So, we must not give up the ship today, in our pursuit of a "better tomorrow".

Today, on conservative networks, there was talk and critcism of the mainline press, because they have not held to the same standards in judgeing the President's trip to Ireland during a natural disater in our nation. In lieu of Katrina, many criticized Bush for acting in a compassionate matter. There was also a lack of response to a environmental disaster a year of so ago, in the Gulf that brought horrendous loss of income to many, but the Feds weren't too quick to jump aboard to decide what to do. We had international offers of help from what I remember, but none was taken...as I remember. Yet, the media didn't criticize until it became hard to ignore.

The free press is necessary to a free society, to hold govenrment accountable to the people by informing them. The media also holds the power to manipulate the facts according to those in power, so they can continue their power game and neglect their duties to govern. Let's not give up the ship for accountability for government, or leadership. No one is above embibing on the headiness of power and the Founders knew it!

The Justice Department is acting in some cases like a Global investigator, instead of the protector of the Constitution and defender of the American people and their freedoms. Global economic policy drives everything today, so we cannot deny the power that that holds over our corporations, but when government doesn't know who they are supposed to defend, it becomes confusing quite quickly. One wants to be able to trust that their govenrment is acting with our national interest in mind, but all beauracracies become too big to control and mistakes are made without knowledge because of a lack of interaction between powers. Separation and divided power does not mean that there is no accountability between the branches of government or that States don't have interests that must be considered!

Today, the conservative and liberals are at war, and that is in our own nation. Perhaps, it is just as the Civil War, when there was a disagreement about how to "go forward" concerning the slave issue. The South had to have workers to defend their economic survival. But, the north took the "moral high road" and desired to free slaves.

Some people see the slave issue as a "front" to manipulate around State rights and get a more centralized govenrment. Is this what is happening today? We see that "social justice" promotes similar values about the "poor", for the "moral high rollers", but this time they use Scripture, instead of expanding upon the principle of Scripture. The real issue is globalization, not "social justice". That is a distraction to appeal to man's "higher nature", while those with the real power increase their power base, and maintain control of more and more of the power structures. Isn't this one reason why our govenrment wanted to "own" portions of our major companies...?

Let's don't give up the ship, when America is in trouble. Let's pitch in and help where we can!!!

The Voluntary Military and Peace

2011-05-25T07:29:00.000-07:00

Ayn Rand

If a country’s government undertakes to fight a war for some reason other than self-defense, for a purpose which the citizens neither share nor understand, it will not find many volunteers. Thus a volunteer army is one of the best protectors of peace, not only against foreign aggression, but also against any warlike ideologies or projects on the part of a country’s own government.
C:TUI 226

This statement captures the essence of liberty, which is peace. And Rand grasps the concept that volunteerism to military duty, is correlated to self=defense and not ideological commitments, or agendas! No one likes to be co-cerced. Co-cercion demeans and demoralizes humans and treats them as commodities or of expendable value.

That means that to remain a free people we must not war along ideology (religion or politics) or independent agendas (without co-operation/negotiation). It becomes complex when there are so many agendas that clash with another's. And what about a nation's values if they conflict with another's? Will there be consensus building in determining how to go 'forward"?

Diplomacy is needed more than ever today, because the world is wrought with so many conflicts. The wars our country is involved in now, have not been declared "wars" by Congress from the beginning. Though there needed to be some response to the 9-11 incidence, was there consideration about all the reprecussions?. Self Defense is important for any entity that has separate interests or distinction. This is important to the nation-state herself! We have to maintain a "voice", otherwise, the nation-state's distinctive voice, will loose power and then, only a few will be heard. And just as the individual without any "voice", the minority position, power will win over and enslave all of us!

The Other Side to the Military Draft

2011-05-24T07:51:00.000-07:00

The age old question about whether the individual or society has the 'upper hand" has been a question that has always been of interests to sociologists and pscyologists as well as many others. It is not resolved because the tension between individual liberty and social conformity will always remain in tension in a free society. With that in mind, how does one view the "Military Draft"?

The Military Draft is an obligation to the State to defend its foreign policy; its need to undermine rogue governments. It is a citizen's duty to uphold our nation's laws and be dependable in giving to society through one's work. A free society does not determine what one's work "should be" , but the military draft does. As I pointed out in the last post that our free society does not determine an individual's place, so, what should be our stance toward the military draft, then, as individuals?

In the '60's many dodged the draft or protested our war in VietNam. This was the individual's right to resist. Our country values the individual's right to have a conscience about particular wars and defers obligation to "conscientious objectors" because of religious conviction.

Foreign policy is not a straight forward black and white issue, but is wrought with complex issues of economic interests, and political pay-backs or positioning. It is hard to determine what is 'right or wrong" in certain instances because of such a mix of issues or concerns and sometimes a lack of information; human rights, trade, diplomacy, etc.

I don't think I'm the only American that is ill-informed about such issues, and as the world becomes more "entangled", then it becomes more complicated to unravel the strings. We live within our own interests, all of us, personally and nationally . So, we must admit that and go from there, otherwise, we will be prone to ideological views that only broaden and enrage an otherwise breachable barrier.

The Military Draft and Individual Interests

2011-05-23T09:43:00.000-07:00

Ayn Rand

Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. [...] It negates man’s fundamental right—the right to life—and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man’s life belongs to the state [...] Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time.
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal,

We have a voluntary Army because those that want to support the State's agenda are those that join the military. This is a noble endeavor. But, what is a noble endeavor, if one desires to voluntarily join the purposes of the State, can become abuses of power.

States all have various interests, and not all of those interests will be those that everyone agrees with/to. Those in power that are our elected officials are to serve the public interests and when they don't it is the people's responsibility to hold these "servants" accountable. Those in government are also to be whistle blowers if they see something that is illegal, or unethical.

The "ideal" is always to allow liberty to the individual and when abuses of power happen, the individual must hold accountable those that have abused their position of leadership! Unfortunately, those, like the CIA agent whose career was ruined and they ended up leaving public service and Washginton, do happen. So, the best advice is to take care to associate with those that do not have agendas that you do not agree with, unless you have joined the military and have no choice!

"The Gospel" and the Modern State....

2011-05-22T11:51:00.000-07:00

What has "happened" to the "Gospel" and "The Church" in Modern society? How do we understand life, and time and text and tradition?

Much has transpired over time that makes it hard to hold to "biblical faith" or "biblical Christianity". Christians believe that history is "God"'s time/story. Westerners think in linear terms concerning their faith. There is a beginning and an end. God created the heavens and the earth and Christ is to come again. Faith is understood within the text as a developing story, God's story in Christ. Salvation was understood as "accepting" the story, and identifying with a Christian community. How faith communities understand themselves is the real issue after the Protestant Reformation.

Faith, as Protestants undestand it, is what liberty of conscience is to our Founders. Therefore, the Protestant Principle "works to fragment "faith" into diverse communities. The Roman Catholic Tradition understands itself as a political community, because it determines what each person's duty is to remain within it "graces". Such a political stance might grant crimes and punishments against the Church, but not necessarily against the nation-state, as these are seen as "spiritual" offenses. Since the West values a linear view of history, change is assumed.As America is primarily understood as a Protestant nation, how did America come to understand "Faith"?

People of Faith, Arise (or why faith is dangerous in a real world)

2011-05-21T07:59:00.000-07:00

This is to be Rapture Day! Is anyone really disappointed, or fearful that they have been "left behind"? Why would people or anyone believe that one could really "know" these things? Because they have faith! Faith sanctions MANY unreasonable, foolish, and unwise thoughts, actions, convictions, and opinions! But people of Faith cannot be torn away from their "personal experience" which affirms their context!

These were "born into" a biblical worldview, where Scripture trumps every other kind of knowledge or information! Such an experience can be understood as a transformation, or coversion that makes a difference in how the "world and all that is" is understood. The denominations that affirm such experiences run the gambit from revivalists, holiness, evangelicals, pentecostals, and religious cults of all kinds. Human have religious experiences. This is a fact, but the interpretation of that experience differs. Those within social groups that sanction and affirm such experiences, have self-affirming contexts and collective identities. They can't or won't see any other view, as their view is so tightly wound around "who they know themselves to be".

The danger in such an identity is to the "self" and to the larger world. The "self" of the child raised in such a context is limited by seeking the experience, or depending on experience, or using reason to understand his preferred "worldview" which is the Bible or the Prophet. "Self" isn't understood or seen in a larger dimension than a religious/spiritual one, so "self" will never understand larger issues, problems or complexities in the world.

The larger world is endangered because such people might think that "God" desires to convert the world, and these do damage to the nation-state's sensitive diplomatic efforts. Other cultures are prone to "war" when their understanding is threatened. But, those of "Faith" don't see the danger. They only believe that "God" can do the impossible and that "God" is on their side! Such thinking and behavior is seen as disrespectful of another's interests, though "self interests" hides behind "God". Religious people don't think, they just believe and act on such belief! A dangerous stance toward the world and others.

Besides diplomacy, these can be a thorn in the side of Academics. Such people KNOW what the text means and says, they don't believe in education. They believe in the Holy Spirit as "God's trainer, teacher and friend". It becomes a spiritualized mysticism that is hard to break. Their "personal relationship" is all that matters, because they have found "The Truth" for all times and all people! This way of thinking becomes a danger to society, becasue such believe that the "biblical worldview" should be applied to all of life, which means ethics.

Biblical ethics is an ideal, but cannot be applied without leaving one's head in the sand or "at the door". Pacifists, and self-annilhilation are understood, by some, as the best way to love one's neighbor, but is not loving to oneself. Pacifism doesn't see the real world and make assessments about when the "evil" must be confronted. And self-anilhilation does nothing for the "other" in resisting what must be resisted or confronting what needs confronting. Accountability is not seen as a neccessity.

"Self" whether one's natural tendency is agressive or passive is sanctioned under the experience of "God" and not seen for what it is and equality under law should be held as accountability for the aggressive and the passive. One sees themselves as the "leader", "Prophet", or "specially annointed", while the other meekly submits to self annilhilation and hatred. It emboldens evil and it destroys justice.

Faith is not something that humans should base their lives on in the real world. The real world works in the way it works and it is best to start to understand what that is, and how that is defined. The Academy is the first place to begin, then one can approach the world, self, and the other with more amnunition than just "have faith", or "just believe".

Self-Ownership, Libertariansim and Christianity

2011-05-18T14:52:00.000-07:00

In a discussion with a friend today, I began to think that the issue of self-ownership, which is a principle of liberty, and libertariansim is at odds with conservative Christian thinking. But self-ownership underwrites the principle of individuality, which is of primary importance if we want to defend private property!

Self-ownership is at odds to Christian thinking because "we are God's workmanship created in Christ Jesus"...."we are no longer our own", 'we are bondservants", etc. etc. God "owns" the indivdiual in Church terms, at least the consecrated ones (Present your bodies as a living sacrifice"). This is athema to the principle of self-governance, and self-ownership and choice. But it is not in opposition to those who believe that humans are to steward the earth and be responsible for it.

The Founders and the Enlightenment believed that we should own private property That people should be rewarded for their labors. No longer was there to be a ruling class that owned all the property, but men could create their own wealth by choosing how they would steward their gifts and talents. The individual mattered when it came to their personal decision about how to live their life and provide for their family.

The individual mattered when it came to issues of justice. Justice is defined within contexts, but is the basis of law. Law is to limit and to define boundaries around appropriate behavior in given contexts. When people respect the law, then there are no victims of crime. Crime is disregarding the law, or boundaries around entities that are supposed to remain separated. The individual being the smallest segment of society, so said Thomas Jefferson. In our country we value the 'personal' or the private, because we value the individual and diversity of opinion. We are freethinkers in America, at least at the Founding.

Today, America has become defined by evangelicalism, which is a broad based "heart" experience of "personal relationship" with the Transcendent. The problem is that the foundation of such a movement was fundamentalism, which was resistant to the Academy, and learning itself outside the context of Scripture. Scripture was "God's infallible and inspired Word" which was to guide and guard all of life. What began in our Founders eyes as an experiment of justice and liberty, became defined by a Text that didn't allow for free thinking. Science was viewed as a threat to such a book, because of evolution, and the dismissal of the creation account.

Now, we see our political climate wrought with wars and rumors of wars over whether the definition of the text should be socialized, i.e. humanitarian endeavors, or spiritualized, i.e. guiding life and the political process. It is disheartening to say the least that Americans cannot enjoy the liberties we have in our diversity. But, when things are seen as "God's rightful rule", then, it can become a little uncomfortable!

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that might threaten the fundamentalists because it allows or risks, which might be in opposition to what is considered "God's Command" (The Divine Command Theory). Liberty for such people makes for anxiety because they are so zealous to see "God's Kingdom" come to pass, or bringing in the Kingdom.

Though libertarianism could become libertinism, it doesn't have to, as such a philosophy allows for respect and dignity to diverse views in the public square. Such respect should be the environment of civility and an ability to reason for what American's policy should be about and for....and that calls for self-governance most of all, because of respecting the "other" while disagreeing.

I have hope for America that her people will be grateful for liberty and practice it in their interaction with others, believing (for those that believe) that God can see and know the heart of man and it is only his right to make the judgements ultimately, and for those who feel overly responsible to remember that it was a diverse group of men that created our "Republic", so we don't all have to see things in the same way.

The Tyranny of the "Other"

2011-05-17T05:59:00.000-07:00

Atlas Shrugged

I have often wondered at the smugness with which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind—yet what is it that they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands? Their moral code has taught them to believe that it is safe to rely on the virtue of their victims. Well, that is the virtue I have withdrawn.
S3C1

Such thinking are those who seek "virtue" from their "subjects"! These don't just assume a position, but they presume upon it! This is why one must choose their leaders wisely! Otherwise, one will be under the hands of the moral dictators, that demand obedience to the "other's" demands, and at your costs!!!

Virtue cannot be demanded, as it must be given by a personal free choice of value and conscience!

To Those That Believe........

2011-05-16T13:04:00.000-07:00

Those that believe are defined by their various religious contexts and these contexts are defined by "holy books" and "holy people". Men always seem to like to follow the leader. The difference in a free society, is that one can choose which leader one will follow. That is key to understanding our political freedoms; Choice as an ultimate value for defining one's life.

Some think that since leaders are called to lead, then those who are to follow must do so without question, as "fate" is "God's will" and it shows deference to "God" and Others in whatever happens.

Such a sermon I heard recently, that admonished the believer to have personal faith and to do their disciplines in secret, not as the hypocrits do. The preacher admonished the flock that God knows and sees, so we don't have to perform or please others. We are only to please God. This is good advice to those that choose to believe, otherwise, people will continually be playing to those that have power, so they can get to the top. In the process, they step on another's toes, so to speak and disorder of all kinds occurs! It is human nature to pursue one's own interests and such as it should be, as long as it is done within the bounds of lawful behavior.

To those that believe, I have hope that you will not allow others to trample your life under their cloven hooves. I hope to see you resist those that are such "pigs". I don't believe in pacifism. I think that thinking that passive good with overcome agressive evil is hopelessly naive! But, I have watched and read about such "saints", but question if this is to be a norm for change? Certainly, those in power would want passivity as it concerns resistance, that way, they can continue in their abuse without any recrimnations. (Our country would have never had a war over taxation without representation, if that had been their perspective!)...

Passivity toward unjust circumstances speaks of character, because these have to practice "self-control" and humility and such character had Jesus, who represents the "ultimate Chrstian model". I don't respect scapegoating, sabatoging another's life, etc.And this is what actually happened according to the text. And those that believe in a historical Jesus must adhere to such religious practices and beliefs.

How can believers think that his life was the epitome of "morality", because he overcame evil with good? How did his life represent the "ideal" for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? It did because he was subservient to his "Father". Subservient and passive enough to face death on a cross, the Christian symbol!! But, one can only believe that Jesus' life was an "ideal", if they believe in a supernatural world to come where justice will be met out and all things restored and people will be rewarded accordingly. I wonder if the pastor meant that one should not seek to please "God"? No, because he said that this was man's purpose to "please God". But, I wonder then, if he meant we were to serve "God' unto death? That is the Christian belief? God wants our life sacrificed to "His Cause"! That sounds like an ogre to me!But, we are to love this demanding, controlling, and heartless God, because he loves us, personally. And the "sufferings of this present life will not be comparable to the glory that is to be revealed"!! That is Church "speak" for the abuses of Church power.

But, believers believe that anyone who "looses his life for My Sake and the Kingdom, will be rewarded in the life to come".. Believers believe in a coming Judgment Day and some believe it will come soon on May 21st, just as believers have always looked and hoped for. Continue to believe, then, and give up your lives for others to trample under their feet. This is your "lot" in life and where you, "Fit"!...And continue to believe that 'God" deems it as "good to and for you", because he loves you!!!

Supenaturalism and Religion

2011-05-16T11:12:00.000-07:00

I had a discussion with a friend on Facebook about her faith. She believes that her faith is not religion, but a real experience of the transcendent. These experiences are supernatural, by all accounts to religionists, as they see the world and explain it in terms of religious ideology, or "God". Why would I not think that there interpretation is the best?

First and foremost, man/men all have a need to understand. Different men have different interests in how they seek to understand, nowadays, with all the differences in the disciplines. But, primitive man understood the world in a primitive way. The Sun was worshipped and different gods controlled different aspects of nature. Religion is man's attempt to explain the natural world. But, there is also the aspect where religion seeks to explain "Man". The Church sought to impact religion by explaining that man's experience was "under a curse" until man believed in some sort of "God" that would "save" or "redeem" man from his "bad experiences". This si the Church's teaching on sanctification, where man learns from his experiences, becasue "God" is "training" him. God has become personalized in history though the Church's story of the redemption of the disempowered.. This is the Church's /fundamental stance toward world history. World history is "God's story", and his revealing of "His Son", in his Bride, the Church. This is a transcendentalized type of secular humanism.

The differences to eschatology lies in the different understandings of "what is to happen" or "what is to come". Such differences have led to splits that created new denominations. Most still adhereing to a supernatural or transcendent view of life and all that is.

This Facebook friend is like many who believe that their faith makes some sort of difference in how they understand their lives. I think this is true, as men also seek to put their life into a particular context. These contexts are identfying factors, as we all need identity. The question is whether we think man is solely formed by such associations. Certainly, our associations do influence and form us, but it doesn't mean that we always accept their understanding, ways, or values, as we get to be adults, or we form a more critical eye toward evaluating life. Whenever we do start to critically evaluate life, then we come to a place where we, as an individual, make a choice about our values and commitments. These are ulitmate values that one doesn't want to compromise on/about. These define "who we are" in ourselves, not who we are because we like the group we are in. And this is when we choose where we will commt.

I don't like religious groups because they all too often define things without allowing for diversity. This is what separates denominations. And I don't value those that are certain of their claims about the transcendent realm, because it is presumptive to assume. Many who do accept the claims to a transcendent realm are those that base their understandings on a religious group (Roman Cahtolicism, Greek Orthodoxy, or some esoteric cult) and/ or on a "Holy Text", which is held as the defining of life. Such a view limits or defines man, without understanding the indivdiual and the complexities to and about life.

So, I don't think one can separate faith and relgions, though the Pietists and the existentialist might like to do so. This would breed a world where religious authorities could define and demand certain behavior for the 'greater good". Such authoritarial structuring is not about the individual's right to life and liberty, but a collective understanding of what life "Should" be about. And don't we all know what "shoulds" do to man? "Shoulds" are about obligations and duty; not liberty of conscience. Although we all have obligations and duties, none of us would want our lives under the control of another's expectations, which intrude upon one's personal life. These like to use the law as a weapon to subvert liberty, instead of using the law to grant equal liberty. But, all of us must determine where we will draw our lines around liberty, as we must, if we define at all, which we must, if we have identity at all. Should we want an authoritarian whether an individual or group of people, to come into power, so all of us will be conformed to their understanding of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

American Values In a Global Climate

2011-05-14T22:41:00.000-07:00

Plato said that one had to be dead if there was no more war. I agree, as men are always going to be self-interested, whether they recognize it or not. Even one's ideas about "God" are "self interested" claims, because this is how we define ourselves. People all define themselves by the groups that hold to their values, some knowing that this is a chosen value, while others less so.

Tonight, we watched "Black Hawk Down". Our military went into Somalia and fought against horrendous odds bravely and many were lost. One comment I will never forget was made by one of the Somalian warriors to a prisoner. He told the prisoner that irregardless of America's desire to promote democracy through gunfire, as a means to negotiation; Somalians believe that gunfire IS negotiation. Victory is only declared when their side has won against those that desire to change their culture. That was a sobering comment and made me wonder why we attempt to change these types of cultures.

The young men who represented our military were holding to their ideals of life and liberty and willing to fight to see that all people live free. This is the American ideal and they were defending not just their country's values, but protected each of their "buddies". They would not leave anyone behind, as they believed in the value of each indiviudal life! Their courage was amazing.

One wonders why we were in Somalia in the first place. Why were our men used in an environment that didn't seem to matter? Power does not seem to understand or value the costs to those that it holds under its command. It is an unusual person that understands and values the "little man" enough to not take lightly sending our men into harm's way. Our military are committed to serve any command, so it is imperative that our men in uniform be valued as to their life. They are fighting for our liberty.

When humanitarian aid is confiscated, why do Americans think that it is obligatory to follow up? Are we loyal to U.N. demands, and not our own Sovereignty? Or does American have some vested interest that the common American is unaware of?

The movie portrayed that hunger creates hostilities between rivalling groups. So, is preventing hunger a means to create peace? Then, what about the dictators or the corruption in society that makes it impossible to claim "the humane"? These cultures are not prone to change, unless they are killed or their power is taken from them.

The honor code of Westpoint claims that fighting for the "right" is not tolerating those that are corrupt or are corrupting influences in a society! One "hero" at the end said that he was asked whether he sought to be a hero and he said that one doesn't seek to be a hero, that becoming a hero happens. Becoming a hero is the result of duty! It is doing one's job in the military.

Westpoint's Honor Code

2011-05-14T12:34:00.000-07:00

Westpoint's honor code says, "We don't lie, cheat, or steal. And we don't tolerate those who do"!!! I respect this standard, as it maintains an order in society that values each equally.

Whenever we lie, cheat or steal, we do dishonor others by taking away another's expectation of rightful "life" and "liberty". These are values that protect our free society and protect justice, and we must not naively trust those who do not hold these standards. Those that do not adhere to these values are those that are not 'Westernized". We believe in the "rule of law".

Some cultures believe that lying, cheating and stealing is justified because of "honor" of "God", or one's family! These cultures speak a particular ethical language which ignores a universal standard of inclusion of diversity or individual rights. You must speak their particular cultural language to be valued and "in" the "honor" crowd... These are often religious cultures and these are based on "group think". Conformity is the "standard" that defines one's life, not liberty. It is the culture of children, whose parents determine what their child will and will not do or be. It is the "Nanny State" in political terms. Adults, who are free, should outgrow such confining and conforming "traditions" and come to understand their own personal preferences and values.

I respect our "men in uniform" because they value and respect our "social order" which values liberty and justice above all other values. Individuals matter in American understanding and culture. I value that as all Americans should!

Richard Feynman's Genius!

2011-05-03T14:04:00.000-07:00

Last night I had the priviledge of attending a talk by Lawrence Krauss on Richard Feynman! I was impressed with Richard Feynman's personality and his curiosity! He was a true genius and a scientist at heart! Some of these quotes give a glimpse into a mind that was "open" and curious, not set and determined !!! He was "all over the place" in his lectures and his thinking, unlike other methodical scientists that lecture from a beginning and come to a conclusive end!

Here are some of his quotes!

"You have no responsibility to live up to what other people think you ought to accomplish. I have no responsibility to be like they expect me to be. It's their mistake, not my failing."

"Study hard what interests you the most in the most undisciplined, irreverent and original manner possible."

— Richard P. Feynman

"Fall in love with some activity, and do it! Nobody ever figures out what life is all about, and it doesn't matter. Explore the world. Nearly everything is really interesting if you go into it deeply enough. Work as hard and as much as you want to on the things you like to do the best. Don't think about what you want to be, but what you want to do. Keep up some kind of a minimum with other things so that society doesn't stop you from doing anything at all."

— Richard P. Feynman

"What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does."

— Richard P. Feynman (QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter)

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress."

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." Richard Feynman

I wonder how many people really think like this? I think it is refreshing! It is certainly engaging. And wouldn't one feel that one could "be" in that kind of "Presence"? YES!

In Light of Facism.....

2011-04-29T16:56:00.000-07:00

In light of my other posts on Facism, I started thinking about how groups define themselves. Distinction makes for significance, importance, value, or some other defining characteristic. This is especially necessary when there has been a humiliation of some kind. Many scholars think that Hitler's rise to power was because of the German humiliation in WWI. Individual's within the group choose to associate with a particular group because of its value to them. I think this is how Relgions have developed by their group identifications and answers to the "Big Questions". The answers to these questions are assimulated into their personal views, values and understanding. And it makes them find significance before "Someone" that is not grounded in reality, as theirs is a lack of political power. But, it is no less true of political ideologies, as in Hitler's Germany.

Facism is an authoritarian governance based on such identification, and those in power control the resources of those within their group. All religious cults define and act in such ways, too. Early Christianity assimulated mystery cultish thinking and understanding; "sanctifying" the pagan to produce a "new Christian culture" that was maintained by the Church's theological commitments to these belief systems.

Facism seeks to identify its superiority in some way, usually with the nation-state and to prevent the moral decay of the nation. Such is what we see on the "Right" in their defense of the Christian Nation. But, it is no less true of theocratic governments such as the Taliban.

On the other side, is the left, who supports a redistribution of wealth and Marxist revolutionary ideology. While the Facists holds a "capitalistic veneer", Marxism is repulsed by the "elite". They want a level playing field. Some political scientists believe that Facism is the last resort of corporations to hold on 'to the ship", when corporatism is sinking. The compromise of private corporate power and government power is deadly for individual liberty.

The death of individual liberty is the point in Facism, as Fascists seek to allign socialism with corportatism. The collective hides behind a capitalistic facade. But, it is no less true of religious zealotry, such as the Taliban that seeks to allign the religous with political power.

I think the "Culture Wars" are about what America is to look like in the future. Is it going to be the defense of corporatism alligned with government power? Religious zealatry alligned with political power? or Socialsim alligned with political power? Instead of looking back and protecting the foundations of our society, we seek "a better way", which ends up underming what America has always stood for; individual liberty in his pursuit of Life and Happiness!

Facism and Fundamental Rights

2011-04-29T06:11:00.000-07:00

Ayn Rand

It is true that the welfare-statists are not socialists, that they never advocated or intended the socialization of private property, that they want to “preserve” private property—with government control of its use and disposal. But that is the fundamental characteristic of fascism.
“The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 211

The "control and use" of anything, even one's personal talents is not to be the object of anyone else's designs, without consent!! As otherwise, though one might hold the property or talent, it is not one's own to hold responsibly.

As James Madison said, ""As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."

-- James Madison, National Gazette essay, March 27, 1792

The "Hope" of the Human Heart and Negotiating on Difference

2011-04-25T04:48:00.000-07:00

Last post, I recognized that negotiation of differences, is an "ideal". Negotiation assumes mutual respect and trust. Mutual respect and trust does not exist among nations, nor does it exist in many personal relationships. Nations are self-interested, just as individual humans. Nation-states justify their actions to citizens depending on their ultimate values, just as indiviudals do. The "ideals" of the human heart are the material for "world politics".

America values individual liberty and its "ideal" is an informed citizenry. Without "freedom of the Press", there can be no liberty, because "the people" cannot have the knowledge that is necessary to hold government 'accountable'. An informed citizenry also, means that people take the time to investigate the issues, but many haven't the time to be interested, except when it concerns their present circumstances. The "ideals" are negotiated by those that are invested and interested in such matters. Propaganda is known to control the minds of the mindless, and those under dominating societies that do not value liberty and individuality. Educating the populace is the only hope for remaining a free society.

Negotiation is diplomacy, as it values cultural diversity, while upholding the value of 'world/global concerns that impose upon the nation-state. International politics underwrites much of what we read in the paper, but I wonder if all the power brokers and their negotiations are "upfront" in eye of the public? It makes one wonder when actions are taken that make one question the rationale, with little justification coming from Washington, what is really happening to the "hope of the human heart"? (the hope to be remain free).

There is little to support that we will ever find Utopian ideals realized, where all men are free, and equal. This is why we "order society" to find the "best fit" for negotiating the differences.

The More I Think About Morality

2011-04-24T20:09:00.000-07:00

The more I think about morality, I have to believe that the moral absolute is the granting of "life" to another. What does this mean?

Is "life" just its physical properties? If so, we shouldn't allow " living wills". We should demand that another's physical life be determined by our own assumptions, without their consent. We know what is right for another person, and they are wrong, if they do not submit to our demands.

What is wrong with this? Moral demands of this kind is considered tyrannical, to those that also value liberty. Liberty allows for tolerance toward differences of value and prioritize the value of choice, itself. Without choice, there is an underming of morality, as morality is about our behavior in society. And society should value individual rights to "ownership" of their person, and property. Without such guaruntees, there is no liberty, therefore, we have no "life", only a "life", as defined by another, as a robot.

So, government is necessary to protect rights, as rights protect liberty, otherwise, we are dissolved before the most empowered and will be limited as to our "life". Limitation of "life" is certainly not one's personal pursuit of happiness, but another's. Society should be protected from intrusions into these private spaces of "self-determining" choices, as long as they are not impinging on another's "life". As the saying goes, "moral busybodies" need to "get a life"!

Good and Evil and Moral Dilemmas

2011-04-24T14:22:00.000-07:00

I am reading a dissertation about Moralism and Morality. The premise is that world conflicts will not be solved through political or government solutions. The only solution is the moral one. This is where definitions about morality and the moral is important. The problem in his analysis is moral realism. Everyone assumes that his "morality is Truth" and that another's is "False". Religions further inflate and enlarge the ante in such conversations, I think. I am still reading and thinking through his premises. One quote he ends with is Solzhenitsyn's. I added some from Nietzsche because he understood also, this point, I think.

“If only it were so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere

insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate

them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and

evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to

destroy a piece of his own heart?”54

—Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn ( (1974).
The Gulag Archipelago

Nietzsche quotes;

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.

Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

In heaven all the interesting people are missing.

Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.

Man is the cruelest animal.

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.

The overman...Who has organized the chaos of his passions, given style to his character, and become creative. Aware of life's terrors, he affirms life without resentment.

To predict the behavior of ordinary people in advance, you only have to assume that they will always try to escape a disagreeable situation with the smallest possible expenditure of intelligence.

You need chaos in your soul to give birth to a dancing star.

But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!

What else is love but understanding and rejoicing in the fact that another person lives, acts, and experiences otherwise than we do…?

Nations have different ways of approaching situations and understandings that make for conflict. Is there a way of compromise where both parties are co-operating, instead of battling to the "end"? Does there have to be a "winner and loser", or can we "all win" something that makes for a 'better place"?

Individual Rights and Expectations

2011-04-20T16:08:00.000-07:00

Ayn Rand

Do not make the mistake of the ignorant who think that an individualist is a man who says: “I’ll do as I please at everybody else’s expense.” An individualist is a man who recognizes the inalienable individual rights of man—his own and those of others.

“Textbook of Americanism,” The Ayn Rand Column, 84

The other day, I heard a psychologist talk about expectations in relationships. He made the point that expectations make for conflict/"war". Expectations are those "goals", images, desires, hopes, and dreams that are put upon the relationship or the other individual. Though our culture "romanticizes" love and creates what "happily ever afters" must look like, real people must step back long enough to ask themselves and thier mates what are their goals, hopes, dreams, desires, and images of marriage. Otherwise, one will always be frustrated because thier "mate just doesn't get it", and you really won't understand why. But, this way, you can count on having a "real relationship" that is based on real communication with another person, which is not defined by a role or function of one marital partner, but mutuality, compromise, negotiation, and respect.

In civil societies, we come to expect that people will obey the law, where we can live peaceable lives, depending on the mutuality that paints our society. Time has meaning in our society, because Americans believe that deadlines are respect for those that are waiting on you to meet them. When an American makes a date, whether a professional or social one, it is considered disrespectful and dishonoring to be late, without calling with an explaination and apology. This is a common courtesy to not presume upon another individual's time/life. And it doesn't much matter whether the one late is the employer or the employee, as to its message. Americans understand that business does not function apart from the employee, and good businessman knows how to entice and convince an employee to join his enterprise. Collaboration is the "food" of business partnerships, and building teams that meet the expectations of their investors. This is what has prospered America economically; trust, respect, co-operation, and mutuality.

How does free and open communicaton and a respect for individual lives make for a better life? It doesn't if one believes that men and women are unequal, in their personhood. If men and women are looked at as only thier gender identity and form their expectations based on that alone, then, it limits personhood to a particular role or function that is "expected Such structuring of a relationship might be easier to "correct", but it is not fulfilling to the individuals involved. Society might function smoothly, and might benefit by these simple roles/functions, but is society where the ultimate focus should be? Society, as the predominat value in this scenario, is justified to over-ride individual liberties because society cannot function apart from a fully functioning family. And a functioning family is considered in some circles to be a man and a woman, producing children. Society does not have the complexities to discuss when such limitations are the norming "norms". But, how do we address those at either "ends" of marital definition?

Those, who believe that polygamy should be allowed to define marriage, have different expectations of women and the relationship between the husband and wife, than a traditional marriage would. The woman is useful for the man's pleasure and procreation of his familial line. But, the woman has little say, even when they have the "right" to approve of a "newly elected" wife. Should this type of marriage be allowed in our society? Why or why not? Wouldn't it meet the requirements of a fully functioning marriage, a family? Polygomous marriages is a partiarcial view (expectation) of marriage.

On the opposite end, are same sex couples that expect that marriage should be defined by mutual consent, commaradie, and expectations. Is this not similar to the first communicative relationship that was affirmed? Is this kind of marriage to be allowed in our society? Why or why not? Is marriage about one's gender and function within the marital bed/relationship? Is marriage primarily about the ability to procreate?

In America, religious liberty is a value that cannot be undermined, unless we change our Constitutional government. We believe that the individual has a right to conscience in worshipping 'God' however he./she sees fit. No one can deny that priviledge, but it stops at the door of another's conscience, as one individual cannot impose their views, without hindering another's right to civil protections under law.

So, what should we desire for and in America, as to our expectations? Should we desire everyone have the same liberty we desire for ourselves? Should we desire that everyone believe like we do? How possible is it that with America's diversity that we will all see "eye to eye" on most everything? Aren't our diverse views understandings that make for great science in investigating such questions? Should we limit the diversity that is the seed-bed to discovery? I think not, that is my hope and expectation!

Individual Rights

2011-04-20T06:04:00.000-07:00

What Do You Do, When No One Listens?

2011-04-19T14:15:00.000-07:00

What happens when people don't listen to YOU? Do you feel frustrated, alone, insignificant, devalued, ignored, minimized, dismissed or what? Perhaps, all these terms apply and this is what is so disturbing when people don't listen!

Has life taught you to expect others to listen because your parent valued your opinion, or at least, you, as a child and a separate being? Or has life taught you that no one listens, because they are too busy for YOU? "You" are those previous terms we used in our first paragraph? What happens when we don't take others seriously? Can we have expectations of them, when we have been dismissive and arrogant?

On a recent program I was listening to, a psychologist say that many conflicts occur because of hidden expectations. These unidentified expectatons are "key" to what we really want or need in a relationship. Expectation is about how we 'see" relationships, in general, and if they are not addressed, there is not much hope of relationship.

Relationships are about two people or groups of people that have certain desires and these groups/people are "formed" by expectations. These expectations frame/interpret our judgments of another's "love" :"value" or "care" of us, as persons. Many times unconscious demands on another's life is what really bothers those that can't seem to bend or express themselves in ways that are productive. These kinds of people are hard-core moralists that hold to a high road of superior vision, purpose, or design about/on life. Those not "in the game" are "not in the game". There is not much compromise in their view, as to compromise is to de-value their ultimates which are absolutes. Absolutes cannot be negotiated, as that would be 'kin" to treason. One must by loyal to principle before people.

When no one listens because they haven't understood or minimized your concern, what can you do? You can take responsibility for youself, and choose the road that seems most pertinant to your values and remember that even those that listen, might not listen well. So, take care of yourself and your own family.

Society's Mistakes

2011-04-19T06:40:00.000-07:00

When someone speaks of "society", what do they mean? Do they mean the "culture", the "attitudes", the "values", the "ideals", the "structures", the "customs", the "norms", the "behaviors", or just, What?

Society is made of individuals, who form families, and families are the founding environment to form childhood 'hopes and dreams". But, society has not faired well on the accounts of many children, as parents are "MIA" (missing in action). Whether the parent is there physically, sometimes does not seem to matter, if they are not "present" with their children "in the moment".

Children have needs that they can't easily rationlize away. All they know is what they experience and what it made them "feel". These "feelings" are basis of forming their identity, self-esteem and values. If parents aren't around to gauge, or care about what their children do, they nor society should be surprised by misbehavior.

I don't think that when our Founders founded our nation, that they ever could envision the social challenges that we face today. There were not that many "outside forces" vying for attention. Mothers and Fathers were mostly "at home" and children sat around the family table at meal-times. Those "norms" are long gone for the American family.

Because of the social problems in our society, Society has become an entity itself. Society invades the privacy and values of other families that might have chosen different ways of addressing problems that the one force fed, because "Soceity" Must address it, or our children are doomed! Such social engineering puts those parents that desire to do right by their children at a disadvantage.

Should our society grant "perks" to those parents that do "their duty"? Should we reward good parental behavior? Would this work better than handing out monies for "the sake of the children" and not holding the parent accountable for their behavior?

Sure, there are social problems, which are really unmet needs of children and parents overwrought with the pressures of modern life, but does this mean that society's needs outweighs "family rights"? Should society's needs made for society's mistakes? And thus, perpetuating societal crisis?

The Power of the Mind via Albert Einstein

2011-04-17T20:33:00.000-07:00

The unleashing of power of the atom bomb has changed everything

except our mode of thinking, and thus we head toward unparalleled

catastrophes.”

—Albert Einstein

I wonder what Einstein would think and say about the conflicts we fact today?

Society, Change and the Political Climate

2011-04-15T09:46:00.000-07:00

Maybe what we are experiencing in America, is indeed the change that was promised by present leadership. Bush might have offended the liberal, but now Obama offends the conservative.

Society in America is made for individual "hopes and dreams". We believe in the individual's right to choose. Choice is a value itself in America. And choice is about competition and the market. Just look at the number of cereals on the shelves of our local supermarkets. When government seeks to control these "competitive values", it also limits choices. People are not prone to choose to "invest" in markets that are not viable, or personally enriching.

Today, America is being re-defined by those that want globalized markets, and the ' political class", where the "underpriviledged" have "equal opportunity and science defines what values American must affirm". These are values of the "free market/enterprise", environmental concerns, as well as, humanity's goal for universalization of political liberty. Free trade is the possible terrain for furthering liberal democratic governments.

We will have to see if the political class, which chooses the scientific issues and political values will work, as governments that are established in the "here and now" must value the diversity and liberty that "free markets/enterprise/competition" provides. Men are not prone to distribute power equally, when it is to their disadvantage. And this is what makes it difficult to ensure "equal opportunity" to those that are under political domination. Power is usually understood in hierarchal structuring, but such sturcturing is damning to individual or personal liberties, if not limited by rights.

I have doubts about Utopian ideals about political realities, and scientific possibilities. But, who am I, anyway? I am an American, and I am free to choose, value and affirm the "ends" I desire. Is this what the "empowered class" really wants?

The Plurality of Voices in American Society and the Autonomy of "Self"

2011-04-15T08:06:00.000-07:00

Many have been seeking a resolution to the political conflicts we experience in today's world. When the world is smaller due to Internet connections and trade is free, nuclear arms and ideologies still plague the landscape and inhibit world peace.

America's Founders understood the need for the balance of power. Although their views were dominated by Newton's paradigm and Christian/Jewish understandings of "Providence", today, the world isn't as simply explained. "Providence" is not accepted, when "the world's" story isn't one that is explained by "ideal dreams or hopes" of "the human/humane". And Newton's paradigm isn't universally accepted as THE paradigm to explain human reality. History was understood in America as "God's story" as revealed in the Christian "Christ". The Jewish Scriptures were the context of "storying" the Christian message. But, such "messages" appeal to the "ideals" of our Founder's vision of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They were never meant to describe the "real or political" one. The story of Jesus was never intended to be historicized as a political goal, upon individuals, but as a moral ideal of a universal value, a value of "the human/humane". The Jew was the useful "tool" of forming the value of valuing the oppressed, or de-valued.

Politics seeks to address problems, and strategic planning about furthering goals of the politically empowered. The Founders, though empowered, never sought to subvert the individual's claim about his own life. The Founder's understood that society needed to function in an orderly way, but did not attempt to order it in a way that oppressed the individual's right of choice and value.

Though science has discovered much more to "life" than Newton's cause and effect, the political realm is still most effective when it is ordered after our Founder's vision of balancing and separating power. That way, the individual, no matter where they are on the spectrum of human development (intellectual, moral, or faith) or values of priority and understanding (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) can find/make their place in society, without oppressive domination by poltical or religious zealotry. Our society was meant to be a "civil one".

Political power that allowed autonomy and religious liberty, within the bounds of law, were the "ideals" of our free society. Americans should always value and take part in their country's "ideals" furthering the goals that are important to them, personally, because America will only survive when individuals take their personal values/ideals seriously and get involved in the political process. At the same time, free persons should also understand that others are free to disagree, under the "canopy of plural voices" that "speak" in our "political environment" without threatening with poltical domination, whether through nucelar arms, or legal manipulation.

Protections of the Law

2011-04-11T13:53:00.000-07:00

Ayn Rand

All laws must be objective (and objectively justifiable): men must know clearly, and in advance of taking an action, what the law forbids them to do (and why), what constitutes a crime and what penalty they will incur if they commit it.
“The Nature of Government,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 110

Without such assurances, there will all kinds of abuse of power, and power grabs over individual lives.

Funny How Christians "Use" Language

2011-04-11T09:05:00.000-07:00

We all use language to communicate. But, though many of us can use "words", we do not know how to communicate. What is Communication?

Communication means that one understands a context and the history that affects "meaning". This is how the "Christian" uses language "to fix" or "redeem" (this is their theoogical term) the world. Such language is useful to get "believers to agree" and co-operate "with God's purposes, as Goe's purposes are assumed to be "about the world". But, is it just manipulation of language for certain purposes? When in reality, what is desired is certain behavior for certain outcomes or goals of personal interests or concern to leadership? These goals are defined within contexts, themselves.

Groups like to scapegoat. The Christian scapegoats "God", all groups think that "justice" is "their view" in a particular context and God 'is on their side". This is how the Church theologized "Christ" as the unifier of the world. Christ was scapegoated for one group's sins against another group of people. Group reality is not 'human development", but one identification factor to a particlar indivdiual.

In reality, groups are formed and framed by social, legal, moral, and interests factors. These factors support individuals and their view of themself and "life". Groups can be "causes" or "interests", or "pursuits" or "goals". But, all formal groups are framed with certain unifying by-laws, written or un-written.

Communication between groups can be hard because interests, views, and commitments vary. And some of a group's assumptions about 'reality" are not readily understood. This is when diplomatic efforts are made to make for peaceful resolution. Resolutions are "peace treaties". Apart from negotiation, there is no "justice", and wars are made from such offenses/differences of values.

The West believes that the individual has a right to representation and trial by jury. One is not guilty until proven innocent. These protections allow the individual liberty of conscience, as to values and commitments. "Justice", in this regard, has to do with rights. And rights are what make for the "human"/humane environment of the West. The individual is not required to submit to speicifications about their life and its commitments. Group interests are to be negotiated with private individuals.

Christians like to define their group on the "language of theology", instead of understanding that Christianity itself is fraught with differences that are based on "language". What does "sin" mean? The definition will depend on how one understands "salvation", the Church, human/individual development, ulitmate purposes, practical realities, and contexts. This is where the "universalization of language" can be "defeating" to bringing "justice", because people understand terms differently. And such complexity makes it hard to bridge the communication gap.

People live within their understandings of the world. In the West, we believe that equality under law, protects the indivdual from hierarchal forms of co-ercion, but , religious groups understand that hierarchy 'honors God". Therefore, the individual is diminished and devalued, "in the light of God". During the Roman Empire Ceasars (or leaders over the government) were considered to be "gods". Christians were first thought to be atheists in this climate, because they resisted "earthly power". So, whether the Christian thinks that earthly government or 'spiritual governmant has primacy, it interferes with a universal view on government, as to "faith".

"Self-respect" and personal commitments are not values to many religious communities, because the individual is only 'a part" of the "whole" and the whole is more valuable. This view is a communal or societal view. Paul said this in his analogy of the Body of Christ and interdependence. While interdependence is a fact of life, dependence is when hierarchal views are held and diminish the indivdiual within the corporate. This is 'injustice", because "the heads" or the corporation pre-determine without considering the "parts" that are needed to carry out their "plans". Such behavior disrespects/dishonors the individuals, who are to be a part of the team, for each team member must be aware to the specifics of the "goal" and know the part they play to be able to commit and carry out the plan. And sometimes the member may not value the goal, and this is when the member is free to consider other options and the "heads" can find a replacement.

It is interesting that individuals all have an innate sense of justice, because we all want to be valued and respected, unless there has been an environment that did not develop proper boundaries in the child.. Self-respect is the first and foremost foundation of coming to terms in 'just relationships. Otherwise, "self" is seen as "selfishness", and run over by those that cease to understand their own selfishness! Self-interest is the basis of our capitalistic system, and "self-interests" supports the view of the Christian or the naturalists. Men are viewed as "fallen" or "fighting for survival". "Fallen" and Survival" also has many definitions, such definitions make for "life". How are we to understand 'life"?

The Christian likes to spiritualize terms, such as "life". Life is about "God:", instead of man. But, when these terms are united, the reality of "the god/man", we have a man fully developed. The Christian would term it 'in God's image". Such human development does not have to be "spiritual", as man is a physical entity. His brain responds to stimuli and interprets such stimuli in cerain ways. This is why communication is complex, because man's mind is different from his brain.

Minds can be "formed" by certain social conditioning. Such is the Christian's attempt to "condition" through "moral education". But, usually, the Church has certain "goals" that are limiting the definition of such "education of character", which is "Jesus" life, as revealed in Scriptures. Such a life was not respected, honored, or considered as in our Western concept of "justice". Should the West continue to promote such "education", as Christian character? Or should the Church cease in trying to use "language" to get humans to agree to "denying self-interest"? Should individuals allow the Chruch to abuse them under a hierarchal view of power? Is the Church justified in "making disciples", when the Church acts unjustly, according to our Constitutonal governent? Is the Church above the law, because "God is above the law"? Or is justice defined by the law, whether or not one uses The Church or God to 'sanction' or 'make it holy?

Since men are "fallen" or prone to compete for survival, how should we view "justice" in the Church? Justice in the Church is no more or less than justice in our Constitutional government, as without it, we do disservice to man (made in God's image,). Man made in "God" image" is not one form, but many forms, because beauty allows for diversity.

The Meaning of Racial Slurs

2011-04-09T12:12:00.000-07:00

One of the first things that one learns in a language is to understand the meaning withint context. Without understanding the context, one is bound to misunderand what is spoken or written. Today's poltical correctness has done just that. It takes "racial slurs" out of their contextual situatedness and misunderstands the intent of such "racial slurs".

Today's "political correctness" doesn't leave any room for affirming social norms. Social norms are what first formulated the "racial slurs", but the political correctness of our society isn't able to use such "racial slurs" for fear of personal insult, or being divisive. Political correctness has undermined the cohesiveness in our cultural values and norms. As a result, our society suffers.

Martin Luther King, Jr. epitomized a social transformation in our society, but such transformation was not to usurp the values and norms of culture itself, such as hard work and industry, but to call the nation to a more ethical or principled judgment about "people of color". He wanted the nation to be united by "character", which upheld the values of creative industry, hard work, productivity and giving back to society, as well as giving equal opportunity to those who'd been second class citizens.

Today's "civil rights" mentality undermine the "right to free speech" when it has racial implications. Such speech occurs because of the value of social norms. The "slave-owining class" had certain expectations about their human capital. They wanted strong and able men and women to work the farm, do the housework and alleviate the upper class from similar duties. But this "norm" came about almost 100 years after our Founding. Our Founding was based in the Protestant work ethic, where all that were able bodied helped.

The Protestant Work Ethic was the hard work and industry that produced prosperity for the "founding generation". The Indians were useful to help the founding generations to know how to cultivate and live "in the wild". But, while the "founding generation" learned from the Indian, the Indian was not viewed as an equal, but as a "savage". The savage acts out of instinct and not out of rational principle. Such judgment upheld the social value of law and education. A civilized society did not function on or by instinct, but by a government. Today, mulitculturalism undermines American society and it 'founding values' because of political correctness.

Racial slurs like, "He's acting like a nigger", has a valid use in language and culture. "He acts like a nigger" came from a culture that valued hard work from the slave. Is the value of hard work still important to our culture, or is "political correctness" a more important value to our society? What we have lost is both the distinction of character when it comes to the worker or the "owner". The worker should work to the best of his ability, while the owner has an obligation to treat the employee with equal respect and honor. Our cultural value is "equal under law".

I think "political correctness" has undermined our society's virtues and furthered society's vices. No longer is there any speech that discriminates, or oppressess. And there can't be any social taboos, or mores that are limited by such language. Surely, one would not want to be labeled as "acting like a Nigger", freeloading off their "masters". Nor would one want to be labeled "acting like a Jew", and be understood to be materialistic and greedy. These colloquialisms have lost their force in society, because of political correctness.

Because Political Correctness has undermined the force of social taboos that uphold society's norms that benefit society and its people, we have lost as a nation, and our culture's values have shifted from hard work and prosperity to entitlement and sloth.

Self-Respect

2011-04-08T20:05:00.000-07:00

On a blog tonight, someone stated that an ideological approach to biblical studies was what was "selling". But, the objective, more factual studies were not. He painted a picture of some unknown classics or religious studies professor, who would be in the back of the "ship". It got me thinking about Self Respect.

I believe that when one has certain commitments of value, these make for "self-respecting" behavior. In the above situation, those that would love fame and fortune, more than intellectual honesty have different values than those that wouldn't submit to "majority rule" for the sake of "peace". "Self Respect" would not allow one to bend such issues of integrity.

Self Respect protects the teen couple under a moon-lit sky, the businessman faced with a financial dilemma, or the person filling out their tax forms. One will not tend to take advantage of another if they act with self respect. Self Respect means that you don't allow others to take advantage of you, either. Healthy self-respect is of necessity to function in society in a healthy way, knowing who you are, and what you are committed to and giving the same respect to others. Most of the time respect is not an overt action, but a respect of proper boundaries that maintain stability in society.

The Question of Experience in Brain Experimentation

2011-04-06T11:51:00.000-07:00

Because humans are sensate beings, the brain is obviously on the forefront of scientific investigation. Experience, then becomes of interest in investigating human response to stimulit in understanding culture, human reasoning, human rationale, and how the mind interacts with the brain. Such experiments are "necessariy evils" according to such scientists, otherwise, humanity cannot learn how to live in "peace", as we will always be conflicing in our "worldviews" which create values, and form "world colliding realities".

Education is such a "life transformation", as it gives information about the world that brings about cognitive dissonance and a 're-ordering" or one's "world". Fine tuning one's reasons for believing or committing to one's values is what defines the years of growing into maturity and wisdom. Such academic freedom is not valued in religious communities.

While control of academic liberty makes for religious control, freedom of the Press makes for political control. Such States demand that the 'people be conformed by the information that is regulated. Both types of limiting information, whether academic or political make for conforming man's 'mind' and forming society into a "collective". Individuals are not important to the collective mentality.

But, the question of values always makes for conflict when values want to be defined by outside sources. Where and what will determine values? Science seeks to promote and protect the "natural environment and resources". Such "experts" then, define for everyone else where the lines are..and some seek to re-define values based on global concerns about these resources, while others like to define values on social issues that concern society.

The Church has been useful to further the concerns of the State when they collude over global power and dominance. Such endeavors have to do with the "poor", the "outcast" (Islam?) and the disenfranchaised (the minority) and using the "ethics" of political and social power to bring about an equalization to all. But, it also undermines the political power of the nation-state and makes for an allignment to those outside the boundaries of lawful behavior. Such an allignment might make humanity open to a "new religious order". Then, the "war" will be between religion and the nation-state as to the defining of law and order, Whichever power, religious or political, the "new world order" will not bring about liberty unless it allows law to protect individual liberties in conscience concerning religion and their personal choice!.

The Movie, "The Source Code" and Issues of Bio-Ethics

2011-04-06T10:49:00.000-07:00

This past week-end our son told us we might like the movie, "The Source Code". So, we went to see it Friday. It was a move about how the State used the new "brain science" and "quantum theory" to protect national security. The ethical question was one of where or when life is valued and for what purpose and who owns their brain or minds?! The story left one with unanswered questions about where to define the limits of science, and the State.

The science experiment was done with a knowledge of "parallel universes" in quanturm theory where 8 minutes of overlap make for new information about the past. A local terrorist attack on a Chicago metro had left the military community on "alert" to another terrorist threat in the center of the city, where many lives would be lost, unless they found the culprit of the 'metor explosion".

The soldier who'd lost half his body, but not all his brain was left in an incubator for the purpose of taking advantage of the 8 minutes to investigate who was responsible for the bombing of the metro. The experiment kept putting the soldier back into the same "past reality" so he could investigate more fully or differently to find the terrorist, in hopes that the terrorist would be kept from another attack with larger reprecussions.

The soldier did his duty, but under the controls of the State, until the person in charge of direct command started seeing the soldier as "a person", who had had traumatic experiences and thought it better to let him die in peace, as promised, rather than continue to use his brain for further experiments. Even though "the greater good" would grant using the brain of a disabled person in such a way, the ethical questions were obvious.

It reminded me of the Karen Quinlen (sp?) case where a brain dead girl continued to be hooked up to a respirator. The question in this case, is "life" defined by "the brain" alone? What makes for human life? Surely, we in the West believe that all aspects of the person, the brain, the body, the mind, the personality, the family, the community, the nation, the WHOLE is responsible for fully functioning Personhood.

Binary Thinking, Deconstruction, and the Reconstruction in the "New World Order"

2011-04-06T09:48:00.000-07:00

Binary thinking is understanding things in "black and white". It is necessary in understanding and making meaning and organizing an organization in the West. But, those that want to bring about a re-construction seek to undermine the priviledged position. structuralism, and making understanding of life in "black and white" thinking, but in multi-dimensioanl thinking. This has significance if anyone want to go beyond the "us"/"them" dichotomy. But, we must ask, if such thinking is the undermining of "self-identity" itself. (I think it is, but that is of necessity to those that want to form global initiatives).

Priviledge is about position, and power. It is a hierarchal structuring of the world that limits, defines and controls from "above". But, new leadership principles understand the need to build "team", "community", or a more equalized "playing field". This is done by sharing information and allowing others to have a "voice" in formulating the "organization", "corporation", or nation.

America was founded on such principles of "equality and fraternity". Today is a global context where those that seek to equalize power, also seek to undermine priviledge to America and/or the West. But, at what costs are we giving up our rationale and rationality? It seems to be a necessary "evil" for a "greater good", at least for those "at the top". And such a "vision" is a communist's one.

The "political" problems that face our world are complex "wars" about power and position. Solutions have been proposed to form a governmental "Leviathan" to control such problems of individual "warfare", as to identity, and goods. Others have proposed "the market" as the "Leviathan" that will control human behavior. But scientists see a forboding future for limited resources that make for "wars". Scientists view the problem as one that must be addressed by science.

Neuroscience is the "ground-breaking" science that will define "Man's future". Today, besides government, and "the market" controlling "world affairs", it is the 'Human Brain". The Brain as responsive to stimuli is on the forefront of sicentific advance to understand how to "control man's behavior", create "a new reality" and form a "new world".

Such a "world" will not be based on binary thinking (ethnocentric mentality) but a synthetic thinking where the "dialectical" is embraced in a new reality created by "new forms" of understanding the world and all that is. The Church is a useful source of "revenue" because religion has been a cause of "war" in the past and is a present reality for the West. The use of "symbol" is a way of reframing reality so 'Unity" and the "Global" will overcome one's identity within a specified "form". And the dialectical is how the Church has framed its reality "in Christ", in "the Cross" and in a "New Hope" of a "Future".

A unificaton of purposes will create the 'new world order" where government, the market and the Church will have a unified purpose and goal or bringing order, that will prevent "war" over limited resources, and hope for future development in science.

I wonder what the "new world government:" will look like and how that will happen, when so many countries do not hold our values, vision or purpose? Will we be "dumbing down" our Founder's vision, without a separation and division of power? Or will Power control the "new World" under "Leviathan"?

Leviathan, as Our New Reality?

2011-04-06T06:51:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, I heard something on NPR that sent chills up my spine. It was presented like a public service announcement. But, the message was one of limiting the public's right under the 'social contract". It was Leviathan.

The announcer stated that "war" is caused by "self-interest", and since "self-interest" is the culprit of "war", man is to give up his rights to "government" under "social contract". That is, one must give up personal interests, so that the public's welfare will be met.

Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan under the premised that government was to be the arbitrator, determinor of the individual. The individual would be limited because government would become more centralized, therefore, supposedly understanding more of what "the public" needs.

Centralization was always of concern to the Founders and political theorists, because of the "balance and separation of powers". The limitation of government was of concern because government had abused power over the inidividual. Hobbe's "Leviathan" desired centralization because of the "state of nature". Power being a useful source of promoting peace, and security.

Hobbe's contention was the people in the 'state of nature" war for gain, security or reputation. It is only when a commonwealth is established that men are "domesticated" to act in ways of "peaceful co-existance". This is what colonization did for Western countries. Trade and commerce were easy means of bringing about domestication of certain societies. And today, it is continued by the West, some believe to pillage. But, as Hobbe's affirms, all are not created equal. So the separation and division of powers were not on "his plate". A Sovereign must rule, and the press be manipulated/controlled, so the people's natures will be controlled.

The Church becomes useful to tame the savages to "fear God", as a moral education, bringing about constitutional governments, so tribal societies can breed "independent persons" that have "comme of age". This was always the view of Catholicism. But, America was mainly a Protestant nation. Calvin was America's "theologian" par excellance.

Today, there is "war on all sides" in the areas of science (creation/evolution); in the areas of political theory (Church/State) amd in the area of man, himself, as to his nature and whether it can be trained, conditioned, reformed, or transformed. And each of these views of man have assumed biases about man and his abilities. These are philosophical and scientific wars that have to do with man, his environment and his ultimate end.

Bifucation of Life

2011-04-04T17:30:00.000-07:00

I believe that for so long I lived my life in bifucation. I attempted to form and view things from separating the sacred from the secular. That is what fundamentalists do. They think that all of life's answers are found in the text. And it was a sickness for/to me. And i personally think it is also dangerous for others.

I would much rather face things as normal and everyday problems, with solutions or a seeking of a solution in the Academy. Humans are human and solutions are solutions. It doesn't matter if there are spiritual terms, (altho I find such language as disingenuous) or "holy water" sprinkled around, so the spiritually infected are appeased.

I am a little "put off" by religion, and spirituality and for good reason. These terms are useful for manipulation, though it is not seen that way. And such terms are useful for creating a reality that might not exist. I know all the arguments for the "probabilities for God", but I would rather face my life knowing that I am responsible, not God, to fix it, to understand it, and/or to create it, whatever "it" happens to require.

I find that humans can hide behind thier relgiious terms, and groups. Don't get me wrong, I value friends as much as anyone, but religious clicks can be quite exclusive in how they define themselves. Such exclusion is not humane and I find arrogant. The ones that "reach out" might have a patronizing or paternalistic view of those that didn't have "the heritage". Such comtempt for me or others, breeds my own contempt. I am sorry, but I thought that Chrsitianity was about me and my life, as well as "humanity's life. I was finally valued as a person, not for some reformation of who I was to become, becasue I didn't measure up. I have had enough of that.

The vision of the Church is focused on surviving the culture of today that doesn't particularly value the Church. And as death approaches its doors, the Church is frantically using whatever means to remain afloat. Humans gravitate to what interests them and find their place in the chosen social group. And framing things in a supernaturalistic way appeals to the feelings of "God", so it grows the Church. So, emergants, post-modernity, or any other philosophical, business, social, psychological "model" is used for the Church's benefit, unbeknown to those in the pew who think their reality is really "from God".

The Church must re-orient their vision to re-frame their purpose, which is not spreading a spiritualtized "gospel", but a message of hope for those that have lost it. and some have done this in reaching their communities. This is social work 101, but it benefits society.

Universalism

2011-04-04T08:50:00.000-07:00

Universalism can be understood in various contexts. Universalism as it has been discussed lately by Bell and the evangelical, is about supernatural salvation. What "God" wants to do to reconcile people to himself. But, the naturalist believes that humans believe in myth when they are framing their realities as children. Myth is know in anthropological terms as the way people frame their cultures. While cultures are human by-products, all cultures are not equal.

Universalism is about universalizing concepts about the world. Universalism is about human rights, global intiatives, and diplomatic efforts to resolve differences. It is "international relations". But, our world is fraught with complexities that are not easily solved. People disagree about what and how to go about dealing with these differences in the world.

Not everyone formulates their particularities in a universal frame, as it makes for discomfort. Identity is threatened by the "unknowns". But, universalization of identity is understanding "the human", which is understanding the generalities of mankind. The generalities of mankind (human development) cannot be universalized to the exclusion of particularity. And this is what liberty is about. Liberty understands particularity within the context of a Constitutional government.

How much of our cultural forming identity is internalized such that it inhibits a "re-framing"? Some are not bound to change their cultural values, even when faced with the facts of science. These are people that aren't open to understand thier own conditioning. Universalizers are those that push against the conventional understandings of "traditions". These seek to change the world in thier particular ways and impact society for different outcomes.

All of us are social transformers. We might not view ourselves that way, but what we do has impact upon others, whether we understand that or not. Humans have the need to belong and these needs are met within various social contexts. There is no one defined context in free societies, as individuals are allowed to choose their context/job/role for the most part.

Universalism has to be framed respecting boundaries of identification. The nation-state being the context of individual identification. Then, diplomatic action can be taken when there are disagreements about where one's values lie. Nation-states are to uphold international laws, which protect global concerns. International law defines terror. And terror is what happens to humans whenever laws are broken, because the laws give a certain expectation or hope for order. The human brain/mind seeks to order the world and laws give the needed context for a sense of security.

Laws that are defined by tightly defined religous or poltiical regimes are confining to individuality and limit possibilities of outcome under the guise of "order". These regimes hold control over society out of 'fear". But, such order undermines human value itself, which international laws seek to uphold.

Universalism is an ideal of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all humans. But, it cannot be found apart from proper government, which allows such liberty. The West values liberty under law, or "ordered liberty", therefore, all cultures are not equal.

This Is the Way I Think....

2011-04-03T15:55:00.000-07:00

E.M. Forster said, “How can I know what I think till I see what I say?” I read this on another's blog and I like the comment because it is true for me, too.

Many times there are so many "ribbons of thought" that I cannot tie them together, until I start to write. I know that my writing is dense and my thinking unrefined, but I love tying ideas together, to create new forms, or new understandings or thinking through problems, or analyzing some puzzle or something I've read. The problem remains that I don't know so much. I am ill informed in many areas, but I love to learn...

So, I enjoy my blog. It is for myself that I write and if it meets another's need, then all the better. But, I think it is important to do what is valuable to oneself, as in finding what is of value, one can benefit others, too.. I used to be attuned to what another's "need" was, or how I would offend, or bring conflict to another. But, that kind of thinking is gone now with blogging. Why?

Blogging is taking advantage of one of the liberties in our society; the freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Without these liberties, we would not be free to think and thinking is the first step to rationality in framing one's life. People should not live without a rationale. And in free societies there can be different rationales in serving one's ulitmate values and commitments.

Some don't think that thinking or ideas are important, but our Founders ideals of "life, liberty" and the pursuit of happiness depend on individuals coming to terms with what these terms mean to them, personally. And personal conviction is where commitment begins, not in irrationality.

I am so grateful to live in a society that values liberty, without which I would not have the right to pursue personal interests. Without personal interests, one can only live their life under the demands of another's values, power or purpose. And whether living one's life under such conditions would be of benefit to society or not, it is not a "moral good" that such determinations happen.

Liberty and Faith

2011-04-03T12:21:00.000-07:00

America was founded on the principle of liberty. Liberty was of value to protect from factions (Federalist #10) because factions divided the nation into special interests. And special interests did not protect justice or liberty. Therefore, "faith" in American society is undefined faith, because the Founders did not want to establish a religious tradition (The First Amendment). But, "faith" was understood to be an important value to protect the social structures of the family. Our nation was a mix of Enlightenment understanding and "faith" principles. Today's challenge is to combine such understanding with principles. Pragmatism and moral idealism were the 'standards' the Founders used to serve the nation's interests.

Enlightenment was the knowledge of man in scientific terms. Today's scientific understanding of man and his society has pushed aside the need for "faith" principles. In fact, "faith" has become a natural faith in reason, not revelation. All aspects of man and his environment is undestood within the Academy. The religious find it hard to defend religious texts as special revelation, other than defending "personal faith".

"Personal faith" is just that, "personal". It canot be defined, controlled, or reasoned from the outside. It is a faith development model, that understands "faith" as symbolic and human development as the real understanding to "faith".

"Faith principles" are understood as character, in personal terms, as to values. These are not formed from without but are worked out from within. "God" is understood in symbolic ways of leadership in the here and now, not defined as a supernatural Being. The needed character for a "god" (government) is humility. And this is learned first in the family and "moral education". Fully formed "faith principles" is "self-governance, because self-governance was also self-resposible behavior". "Self-goverance" was a high value to our Founders, as without it, there could be "no union" because self-interested parties would undermine and make "war" for thier personal investments. This was one of the very reasons why "religion" was not to drive public policy, because it would inevitably bring about factions. Factions base their understanding of "faith" on "real understanding" of the transcendent. As the transcendent can only be appealed to but never "proved", these will always cause divisions in the nation. It takes humility to unite when "faith" is so important that "faith communities" divide over its definition.

Humility requires an acknowledgement that leaders are needed if anything gets done. Humility frames the "personal" to be a part of what is needed to protect and prosper society, as a whole. The principle of the "personal" is also, an understood boundary to leadership. Good leadership does not presume and doesn't take advantage or intrude upon another's "personal". This is a character principle of humility and mutural respect. Though humility is needed, it does not "put its head in the sand" but uses the best information that is known in the Academy to further the "ends" of societal flourishing.

Today's sermon tried to balance the supernaturalists and the naturalists undestanding of religion, for societal benefit. The supernaturalists were appealed to on the basis of "God's vision" of love and hope....and the Church being of importance. The naturalists, on the other hand, were appealed to understand the need to the disadvantaged children in our society for education and encouraging character development. These children who have no healthy role models are those that need the impact from those that care about society's health as a whole.

Factions were never the intent of the Founders. They intended to build one nation "under God", but "God" was understood as a "faith principle", because we were mostly a Protestant nation. And faith can't be defined, except as a personal commitment of value in a free society. Those that seek to prevert or co-erce another's life in forming "faith" through "works" are "using scripture to over-ride" the moral principles of our Constitutional government, because the scriptures also say, that "whatsoever is not of faith is sin". And if the "just" live by "faith", then there is no more room for discussion, as whether one is a believer or unbeliever, faith is foremost a principle of character. A character that will not bend under the principle of Liberty and Faith.

Moral Realism and Language Games

2011-04-01T15:01:00.000-07:00

Moral realism is grounded in the real world of "the political". What is claimed to be "moral" cannot be grasped without language. And language becomes the problem of diversity. Diversity of interests make for our public climate of "debate" about what "should" claim universal right to make the "goals" for societal benefit. So, what can be "the moral", if there are diverse ways of expressing the "moral"? The academic disciplines seek to claim the "moral" for their own purposes. But, all of these claims should be limited by our Constitutional government! We cannot allow the "universal" to undermine the personal, nor our nation-state.

Moral realism is based on Constitutional government in the poltical realm, where "the rule of law is King", not Dictators, Monarchs, Chiefs, Leaders, or Presidents! The rule of law makes definitions about nations and their values. Without such a government, the individual serves some other ends, than being an "end in himself"! This is the "rub" for us in the West, today. The liberal want to liberalize what cannot be liberalized without undermining the very basis of our protections, the rule of law!

Academic freedom is one of our highest values because we do not believe that any form of knowledge has a right to primacy over others. In other words, the political claim to knowledge should not have more power over other areas of knowledge in the Academy. Otherwise, we limit other perspectives, and make unwise or ungrounded decisions based on values that might limit the wider range of knowledge. I think such has happened with the natural sciences and economics. These have become politicized. And the religious claims to knowlege have underwritten these claims as absolute! Therefore, the environment, and the poor are the driving force behind political power. Political power that is driven for speicific goals, undermines the very basis of our Constitutional government. Politics then, become a war to maintain the power to control "language" or the attempt to defeat such "language" and expand the information base, so the "common" will beocme empowered. The Tea Party movement seeks to bring accountability to government in such a way.

Our country values liberty, as justice, because we believe that individuals must have the right to their life and property. These are negative rights, as government does not seek to impose these rights, but does defend them if they are undermined. We do not value those that make "special claims" about political power. Power is about personal ownership of one's life, Government must be limited, not expanded. Otherwise, we limit the personal to the "common" and it undermines liberty as a value for a "universal value" of some other definition, i.e. the definition of the "empowered class".. Personal choice is based on personal values, not universal ones. Universal values, might limit personal ones, which undermine our understanding of the "moral" of a Constitutional government.

Today, we are challenged as to our diversity and the laws that protect diversity. Shairia law claims a "right" to religious tolerance in our society, that undermines our cultural values of equality and liberty of conscience. And the illegal immigrant claims "universal right" under the "Declaration of Human Rights". Is the "universal" to undermine the law of the nation state? Are we to tolerate what undermines our very survival? Our laws protect our survival, because they set limitations, while protecting liberty. We cannot undermine our Constitutional government and our citizens right to protection under those laws.

Shairia cannot be allowed unless we fail to make laws that protect from the abuses that we deem inhumane treatment to the child, or the unequal treatment of women. That would limit radical Muslims from infilterating our country.

As to the illegal immigrant that fails to meet our immigration policies. We need to enforce the law, and we need to think through what to do about the drug trafficking that undermines our society, while appealing to those crossing our borders. Those immigrants that come to our country to find economic liberty must be taught how to make thier own life in their own country. Those that are here legally should be part of the solution in encouraging change in their home society. This way, our country, and theirs benefit. But, we cannot afford to promote nation-building, when other countries do not do their part.

Humane behavior needn't undermine our national interests. But, it should limit the resources we give to others. We cannot do something we cannot afford. We must be committed to viability at home, otherwise, we defeat ouselves in the proces of our "moral concern" for others. Such stipulations about our "investments" abroad must be studied. We can't have our country limited by environmental concerns, that undermine our own economic viability, while other countries are allowed that liberty.

Such issues as our natural environment, and "the poor" have been useful and used by the political class to further goals that subvert our national interests.

While scientists like to define the 'moral" on the principle of the natural, the political scientists like to view "the moral" on our constitutional government. So what is "moral"? That depends on one's interests and values. The liberal would uphold "natural selection", while the conservative believes in an equalization of power where all are created equal.

I read once where America is a country that was founded on pragmatism, and moral idealism! Our ideals allow liberty under law. Ordered liberty. And our pragmatic values should not be politicized to the extent that moral realism undermines another's right to describe things in another "language". Americans haven't valued "propaganda"!

"Moral Claims" About Human Rights, and The Poor

2011-04-01T11:34:00.000-07:00

Human rights has a liberal agenda, but no less than "the poor". While "human rights" appeal to liberalizing "rights languagde" to "all people". "The poor" is specialized political language. Both appeal to different "kinds" of pre-dispositions toward "the human/humane". But, without discrimination of one kind or another, one can't make his own rational choice, but be a pawn to emotive identification factors!

While the liberal like universal terms, the conservative likes defined terms according to neurological research. The best way to "sell" globalized government is to sell each on its own "language tendency" based on emotion/sentiment that breeds identification and motivates to heroic action.

While the liberal humanitarian might like U.N. intervention, the conservative intellectual wouldn't see this as "justified" because one can't make any claims to anything, without defining, limiting, discriminating, as to what is allowed in the "real world"....not the idealized one, which is the nation-state. Our nation must defend its right, not bring about the universal Utopia that is so often sold to manipulate others. Human rights, or "the poor" are the terms of appeal to human sentiment to universalize what might be to the detriment of rational choice about one's life.

Identification has to be an alignment in/with the agenda or goal of a certain group. Emotion or sentimental visions, or hopes of "ideals" are the undermining of individual choice, and rights. Alturistic concern is a "group's norm" so that the social goal of equalizing the playing field is made. This is what the "social gospel" proclaims. And it justifies its goals by the means of manipulating language to subvert "selfishness".

Moral claims are made under many guises and they mask demands of another's agenda, whether Church, State or a Dictatorial Leader. So, what is morality, except what one deems as one's own purposes, plans and goals in a free society under a Constitutional government. We must never give up our right to individual liberty!

Good People and Religion

2011-04-01T07:28:00.000-07:00

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.

But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg (1933-)

Social psychologists have known this for a long time! Group behavior via religion tends to "not notice" its own tendency to radicalize! God justifies whatever is deemed "sacred", "holy", "set apart", etc. And when it does.....all kinds of evil from the death cults of Jim Jones, to the greed of a Jim Baker. Nothing is beyond the pale of religious zeal, righteousness, holiness, or "moral out-rage"! And such behavior is called "the fear of God"! But, is is really "self justification" or "self vindication" for those that "need" "God" to make them "feel better" about themselves and the world they live in!

Neuroscience has revealed that the liberal and conservative bias in religion and political views are genetically determined. The consevative is highly sensitzed to their senses, while the liberal is not. The conservative tends to be more emphathetic, than the liberal. So, what one believes about "right and wrong", is really determined by a society's laws. But, what is "felt" as "right or wrong" are genetic (innate) when it comes to cultural differences in a free society.

Don't Talk to Me About "Spirit"!

2011-03-30T12:19:00.000-07:00

On another blog site it was questioned whether "God was able to speak" to the individual. I used to believe so, but have made my commitment to doubt it, because of the horrendous atrocities I have seen and experienced in such a claim!

How can those that "have a personal relationship to God" be distracted from what they deem to be "true"? It is subjectivism to the extreme. But, it is personalization of myth making and meaning forming "identity". These are hard places to break apart, as they are embedded within the person himself/herself.

People do irrational things when such belief is held. I sold all my possessions, and went to a mission organization. I broke up with my boyfriend who I'd dated for 4 years. I threw away a silver bracelet that was given to me as a gift which held much meaning. I used such scriptures as "loving god before father and mother, etc." to defend my irrational behavior. I was sold out to "Christ". I had surrendered all! But, my experience is not a "lone ranger" one, many have done such things in the name of "faith".

I just heard on the news that a mother had killed her child by performing an exorcism. She had given the child some "concoction" that she thought would alleviate the child from his "demons"! The child's body was found a week later! These are not uncommon occurances, because "faith" makes one believe beyond reason. The Oklahoma bombing, the Texas military post murders, and many others are driven by strongly formed beliefs about "hearing god"! It doesn't matter whether it is a Christian community, Muslim community, Jehovah's witness community", or what, all religious communities are formed and framed by claims and rationale that frame one's "world".

Whenever such beliefs are affirmed in a community, they become self-affirming and self-fulfilling "prophecies" about reality and life itself. One cannot "see" life in any other way. Those that are so conditioned are in "cults" or in "cultish thinking". Life is only viewed in one dimensional form, or ways. It is the ONLY right way to view things.

So whenever you talk about "spirit" my antenae goes up. And the questions start. One cannot live on faith alone.

Don't Talk to Me About "Love"

2011-03-29T21:31:00.000-07:00

I have been romantic most of my life. Dreaming of the day I'd marry and live happily ever after. I absolutely loved planning and being a part of our daughter's wedding. Decorating the reception hall and church was something I will never forget, as I love making things look beautiful! I loved talking to people in junior high and high school about their relationship problems. I used to be all about "relationships". I just knew that things could be worked out. I believed in "love" back then.

Cynicism is a transition phase until one can get over the realities of life. Life is not about hopeful dreams, but problems and difficulties. It is reality based, not escapist theology. Such transition means one doesn't look for narratives to woo one to sleep, but looks for the love in the 'neighbot's face". Friends and family is really all anyone has and these are to be cherished as one gets beyond cynicism of life.

Life hits everyone sometime with hard realities. And those of us who are more sensitized by nature or nurture are prone to react strongly to such realities. Some of us decide to think through their life differently. What they had believed is myth and unrealistic hopefulness of 'Utopian" ideals, not the conflicts, politics and harsh painful realities that are the true reality of life.

I don't think there is any healing for "ideals". These are only to be fought for, they are not realities, but dreams of human hearts. And human hearts understand their dreams in different ways. I only want to now protect others from crushing blows about believing "hopeful dreams". It is improbable for most that dreams come true. And this is what being an adult is about, fighting to live and make one's choices, and be who one desires to be, irregardless of what others think or believe. This is when one not only owns one's life, but starts to enjoy life in a new way, because one begins to love oneself . This is only the begining of happiness, to know oneself and not keep hoping for another reality, life or dream.

After one has grasped that life is not a romantic novel, where things are always completed and neatly tied up, one has to begin thier life in a new understanding of value driven goals, not ideally driven dreams. This is reality based thinking, not mythological dreams for hope in the "by and by".

So, don't talk to me about "love". Love is action, but the action must be driven from personal choices about values that are important. Otherwise, others impose thier "ideals" from the outside, as moral demands and that is not love, nor loving. All of 'us" have a right to "be", so if I am not allowed to "be", "Don't Talk to Me About Love".

Is God the End of All Moral "Oughts" (tToday's Sermon)

2011-03-27T21:20:00.000-07:00

Today's sermon was a sermon defending suffering as a means to forming character. The sermon's three points were:

Sunday, March 27, 2011

Preaching this morning...

... from Romans 5:1-11. Simply outline:

1. God has been getting us ready for our sufferings.
2. God has been getting us ready for the end.

3. God is with us now, in suffering, leading to endurance, building our character, and confirming a hope that will not disappoint.

Assumptions to the sermon: WHATEVER "God requires", i.e., "Christian character", as defined in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7), "He inspires". The foundation of such a belief is the "Divine Command Theory" in moral philosophy.

The Divine Command Theory does not question what God commands, as it is obedience to WHATEVER God requires. And such obedience is the "right response" to suffering, not questioning, but submitting. It is human passivity or resignation to "Fate", which the Christians call "God's Sovereignty" or "God's Providence".

The future is known by God, ( foreknowledge), as God stands "outside of history or time. He knows the beginning from the end, so whether "He predestines" or not, His concern is that one believe that "He has control" over human history, He "Knows all" and will "not disappoint in the end". This is the traditional view of God in scriptures, and in Greek philosophy of biblical times. God is Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent.

The "preacher" made a point about Japan's recent tsunami, and asserted that God did not cause the tsunami, and expressed his own concern, as a "Jesus model" of "care for the suffering". He pointed out that if any of us had known about the forthcast of the tsunami, would we not warn those that died, to prevent them from dying? He told a story about a man who had gone to pick up his son at the pre-school on the second floor. He looked out the window to watch a car being swept away when the tsunami hit, knowing also that those that had gone into the parking lot, his son's playmates, had died with their children. Yet, he had survived. Why?

Why would God not warn those that died, if He knew the tsunami was coming? It seems clear that either God didn't know the tsunami was coming, or did not have control of this natural occurrance, or He could not warn those that died. OR maybe he just didn't care about those that died, or maybe those that were meant to warn the ones who died didn't do their part? Maybe those that died "got their just desserts becasue they weren't listening to "God"? They needed to have an "inside connection" or "personal relationship", so God could have warned them!

Something seems wrong with the picture of such an untold tragedy. One cannot answer those that suffered with platitudes that God wanted to build character! How horrendously insenstive. How callous and presumptuous! Do Christians think they know the mind of "God", when they claim that "God's ways are higher and His thought past finding out"? Either Christian do know how God works, what He wants and what everyone should do and/or believe to be saved, or they can't understand the "mind of God". It can't be both! Or is God capricious? Does He destroy and then blame those that haven't done their "fair share"? Scriptures say that He creates light and darkness; good and evil. How are we to even understand that in a theological frame? except to use it when it is convienient for our own purposes, and claim "God" as the supporter to our own plans or wishes?

Are these who suffered such losses in the tsunami to "trust and obey", submitting their questions and reason to submission of scripture? They are to know that God knew beforehand what they would suffer and He is using it to form their character? He knows what we need, so we are to perservere, knowing that He will not disappoint???? But, scriptures also says that "hope deferred makes the heart sick". Just when is too much, too much? How are we to know and make the determination when another has "had it"?

God's Divine Command is not the only "moral" theory, but those that adhere to DCT, use scripture as the support of their belief system. That is, Christian character is gauged by scripture, which was written during Roman power, where Christians were mocked and despised. The Chrisitans had no power base, nor influence in society. Theirs was the lot of servitude to an overbearing government. Today, we do not have such a government. Our government is more just or tolerant. Our government allows for religious liberty and influence in the public square. So, today, a Christian is not to "trust and obey", submitting to tyranny. We are to appeal, petition, voice and protest because humans are not called to suffer under tyranny to form "Chrstian character". Leadership is accountable to "the people". Are good leadership principles applicable to "God"? It can't be under the Divine Command Theory. God is an authoritarian dictator in the DCT. Humans cannot be moral agents if they do not have choice and liberty about their lives..

Christian character can define itself differently, even within scripture. Christians, instead of the suffering servant model, can also hold government accountable, like Esther, or hold to principle or conscience, like Daniel. Character can be viewed as an absolute response, or a moral judgment within a value system. It's response is contextual historically and situationally. God's Divine Command theory believes that just because "God is God", He deserves obedience without rationale, principle, or question, which does not take into account any other possible scenario. It is a legalist perspective, instead of an ethical one.

The "preacher" pointed out that Gadhafi would be considered universally as "evil". Why would one not have to be a "Christian" to make such a judgment? because Gadhfi does not respect the rights of others to act independently from his wishes. He is a dictator. Some Christians that hold to the Divine Command Theory believe God is to be "honored" as it is God's "right" above our "rights". Humans are necessary means to "God's ends" which are not the human, but "His Glory and Will". We should never make our plans, as God has His, God is granted ultimate right to rule over and humans are unvalued except for God's designs". And, yet, we understand that the Sermon on the Mount is to be the "human response" to God's Power, if we want to "be like Jesus". We must submit, walk the second mile for our enemies, turn the other cheek, because Christians aren't to have power? And yet, power can have a corrupting influence. But, it doesn't have to.

Our Founders did not desire for leaders to be overbearing tyrants. They desired for humans to be respected moral agents that could frame and form their lives by self-governance. Self-governance means that humans take responsibility for themselves to plan their ends. And the "ends" are what motivate humans to "form their character" to accomplish their own purposes. "God" should never be useful to control, and manipulate others.

Suffering comes from natural disasters, but should never come from the hands of men. Men have choice and responsibility about causing such pain. Stealing another's property, coveting a neighbor's wife, etc. are moral precepts that work, not just because God said it in the Ten Commandments. Many believed in such precepts in ordering society long before Christianity.

Therefore, formulating a Christian character building theology, or discipline is wrong headed. Character is innate natural tendencies, as well as self-reflection and value driven character development. Some people might want to strengthen a certain character trait, while others might want it to remain weak and focus on something else, depending on what one's goals are. Different goals require different character traits. So there is no "Chrisitan character". It is only defined as character within context of given situations and it does not have to do with Divine Commands or 'God", as a requirement, at all, unless the Church wants to formulate a conformity to Church rule that abdicates individual liberty, under the Divine Comman Theory of moral development.