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!
Showing posts with label " law". Show all posts
Showing posts with label " law". Show all posts
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Self-Ownership, Libertariansim and Christianity
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.
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.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Protections of the Law
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.
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.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Why the Law Cannot Make Someone Be Perfect
In religious circles, it is taught that the law "cannot make someone perfect". This is what scripture says. This means what our Founders understood to be character. Americans were to be self-governing.
Character is about how we behave, not just about values. Do we respect another's right to "be", or do we demand them to be what we want? The Founders understood that a Republic will never survive apart from the character of its people. There must be a concern about the state of affairs, as government was not to run itself, but be run by the people! I think this is what the tea partiers desire, the people's voice.
Civility has been a little tattered these days, because most of us haven't felt we have had a "voice" or been respected by those that should be concerned and listening. These are our Representatives after all, aren't they?
What has been America's response to abuses of power? Have we been concerned and informed? I have taken my government for granted, thinking that religious or sacred things were the only things "eternal". I know better now. I'm not assured of eternity, but I do have now. I must live it in the conscience of my values, but be just as concerned about the state of affairs in my government! I think this is a "real perfection" and not the "idealized perfection" of holiness camps!
Character is about how we behave, not just about values. Do we respect another's right to "be", or do we demand them to be what we want? The Founders understood that a Republic will never survive apart from the character of its people. There must be a concern about the state of affairs, as government was not to run itself, but be run by the people! I think this is what the tea partiers desire, the people's voice.
Civility has been a little tattered these days, because most of us haven't felt we have had a "voice" or been respected by those that should be concerned and listening. These are our Representatives after all, aren't they?
What has been America's response to abuses of power? Have we been concerned and informed? I have taken my government for granted, thinking that religious or sacred things were the only things "eternal". I know better now. I'm not assured of eternity, but I do have now. I must live it in the conscience of my values, but be just as concerned about the state of affairs in my government! I think this is a "real perfection" and not the "idealized perfection" of holiness camps!
Power and the Law
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely", so said Lord Acton. Our Founders found this to be so, as well. They framed our government so power could not be absolute, or at least ideally. There are always ways around the law, but those that choose to abide by our laws do so to promote order, and value the liberty our laws are to protect!
Those that are driven by power are driven because of insatiable needs that corrupt them from governing for the "greater good" or from being "public representatives" that serve the public's interests. Power does corrupt. Power has a deadening effect on those under it. There is a sense of invincibility when one has power to wield. Therefore, power must be held by those that are self-reflective enough to know its deadening impact. Many have lost their "life" and reputations because of using their power and influence to gain absolution from the law. Fudging on one's income taxes is to be expected, everyone does it. Then, what are the laws defending? Are laws there to protect some ideal? And what is the rationale for these laws and ideals?
These are questions that concern our courts, in our present day. But, they used to concern the average citizen. People were more prone to self-evaluation back then. Religion serves the purpose of self-reflection for fear of "God's judgment", or "fitting in" with the Church club. And rightly so, for the philosophers of the past said that an "unexamined life is one not worth living".
Religion today does not serve the purpose of "examing one's life". Religion serves the end of justification of one's life or one's end. This leaves little room for self-reflection or self-examination, and religion ends up being the validation of "stoning another" or judging another based on personal conviction.
Personal conviction was the liberty of conscience our Founders granted under law. Religous conscience is valued, but was never to condone the right of judgment, as that was the place of government. Government was to protect everyone's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But, nowadays, the religious fear that our nation has gone too far.
While I agree that our nation has dissolved any means of evaluating values, it isn't because Americans aren't religious/believers, but because religion and the American way of life itself has gotten in the way of "self reflection". We don't have time to do everything on our plates. We delegate to those we hardly know and suffer the consequences of unwise delegation.
We hurry to meet all our promises, which we can hardly meet, with family responsibilities and we wonder why our families suffer or deadlines go by without our meeting them. We bite off more than we can chew. We must know our strengths and weaknesses enough to know what we can handle and make our choices wisely.
Many have gotten into financial straits because they have only looked at the monthly payment, and presumed upon the future, not preparing for it. Wisdom doesn't presume upon others, but meets life with an attitude that one must take their own responsiblity, and not look to others for the hand-out, nor should we compare our standard of living with another's. Everyone doesn't have the same material blessings. So what? The question should be is the pursuit of the material what life consists of? And what are the costs of such a pursuit?. This is not to say that no one should ever have a need that can't be met and our sociel networks could help provide, but more often than not, we are taught that we need dependence on others or that we have a right to have what everyone else has. Such teaching doesn't demand self-responsible behavior. Self-responsible behavior means that society consists for the most part of self-responsible adults, and not dependent children.
All governments are not equal. This is obvious to anyone that loves liberty. Is it moral to demand immoral governments to 'obey' or comply with human rights under the hand of our government's Power? How much should we intervene into other countries and their problems? And how do we choose to get involved? Are our own interests the only protections that are deemed worthy of using power? Obviously, America is limited by resources, and time. Are these what should frame what and when we "give a hand" to those wishing for reform?. But, there are other extenuating circumstances, that make for conflicting interests. Our politicians, and ambassadors are the ones that evaluate those decisions. And our judgments from afar might not know all the facts, nor the conflicts that impinge on such decisions.
I am no expert, by any means, but it seems to me that we all have biases about where we draw our lines. Most of us are not consistant, nor are we reflective enough to know why we choose what we do, nor why we do so. All of us need to evaluate ourselves and determine how we would "lead" if givern similar circumstances and ask ourselves why we make those choices. This would reveal our underlying motivations and determine our priority of values. Then, we might understand that decisions are not "black and white" solutions, but complex problems that need creative minds to solve.
Those that are driven by power are driven because of insatiable needs that corrupt them from governing for the "greater good" or from being "public representatives" that serve the public's interests. Power does corrupt. Power has a deadening effect on those under it. There is a sense of invincibility when one has power to wield. Therefore, power must be held by those that are self-reflective enough to know its deadening impact. Many have lost their "life" and reputations because of using their power and influence to gain absolution from the law. Fudging on one's income taxes is to be expected, everyone does it. Then, what are the laws defending? Are laws there to protect some ideal? And what is the rationale for these laws and ideals?
These are questions that concern our courts, in our present day. But, they used to concern the average citizen. People were more prone to self-evaluation back then. Religion serves the purpose of self-reflection for fear of "God's judgment", or "fitting in" with the Church club. And rightly so, for the philosophers of the past said that an "unexamined life is one not worth living".
Religion today does not serve the purpose of "examing one's life". Religion serves the end of justification of one's life or one's end. This leaves little room for self-reflection or self-examination, and religion ends up being the validation of "stoning another" or judging another based on personal conviction.
Personal conviction was the liberty of conscience our Founders granted under law. Religous conscience is valued, but was never to condone the right of judgment, as that was the place of government. Government was to protect everyone's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But, nowadays, the religious fear that our nation has gone too far.
While I agree that our nation has dissolved any means of evaluating values, it isn't because Americans aren't religious/believers, but because religion and the American way of life itself has gotten in the way of "self reflection". We don't have time to do everything on our plates. We delegate to those we hardly know and suffer the consequences of unwise delegation.
We hurry to meet all our promises, which we can hardly meet, with family responsibilities and we wonder why our families suffer or deadlines go by without our meeting them. We bite off more than we can chew. We must know our strengths and weaknesses enough to know what we can handle and make our choices wisely.
Many have gotten into financial straits because they have only looked at the monthly payment, and presumed upon the future, not preparing for it. Wisdom doesn't presume upon others, but meets life with an attitude that one must take their own responsiblity, and not look to others for the hand-out, nor should we compare our standard of living with another's. Everyone doesn't have the same material blessings. So what? The question should be is the pursuit of the material what life consists of? And what are the costs of such a pursuit?. This is not to say that no one should ever have a need that can't be met and our sociel networks could help provide, but more often than not, we are taught that we need dependence on others or that we have a right to have what everyone else has. Such teaching doesn't demand self-responsible behavior. Self-responsible behavior means that society consists for the most part of self-responsible adults, and not dependent children.
All governments are not equal. This is obvious to anyone that loves liberty. Is it moral to demand immoral governments to 'obey' or comply with human rights under the hand of our government's Power? How much should we intervene into other countries and their problems? And how do we choose to get involved? Are our own interests the only protections that are deemed worthy of using power? Obviously, America is limited by resources, and time. Are these what should frame what and when we "give a hand" to those wishing for reform?. But, there are other extenuating circumstances, that make for conflicting interests. Our politicians, and ambassadors are the ones that evaluate those decisions. And our judgments from afar might not know all the facts, nor the conflicts that impinge on such decisions.
I am no expert, by any means, but it seems to me that we all have biases about where we draw our lines. Most of us are not consistant, nor are we reflective enough to know why we choose what we do, nor why we do so. All of us need to evaluate ourselves and determine how we would "lead" if givern similar circumstances and ask ourselves why we make those choices. This would reveal our underlying motivations and determine our priority of values. Then, we might understand that decisions are not "black and white" solutions, but complex problems that need creative minds to solve.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Questions About Reality
My husband is reading a book, to review it, "Is God a Mathematician? And I had not really connected that dot to another in my thinking. Was the American Revolution based on an understanding of Newton's empiricism, and understanding of "Nature"? Or did the Founders really think their revolution was a "New Creation"?
I don't know enough about the history of law to know what the foundations of Law were. But, it would be an interesting story. Our nation has been based on Greek and Roman understanding of law and liberty. Were the Founders looking at "Nature" as a law, when the DOI says that "they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights". These rights were granted "BY MEN". So government is what protects these rights in the "real and political world"!
Science was the revolution of an enlightenment. Man was not the center of the Universe, but a part. This paradigm shift shook Christiandom to its roots. Man wasn't looked upon as a special creation. Then came Darwin's evolutionary theory, which associated man to the animal Kingdom. No longer was man created in "God's image", but an animal image. How did this affect man's understanding of himself, the world in which he lived and what these theories meant to man's life in the real world?
In mathmatical theory, there is a disagreement about whether man discovers the "laws of Nature' OR man "creates expressions that describe Nature" more effectively. Which is it? Does it matter?
Everything rests on theory. As the saying goes, "the Devil is in the details"!
I don't know enough about the history of law to know what the foundations of Law were. But, it would be an interesting story. Our nation has been based on Greek and Roman understanding of law and liberty. Were the Founders looking at "Nature" as a law, when the DOI says that "they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights". These rights were granted "BY MEN". So government is what protects these rights in the "real and political world"!
Science was the revolution of an enlightenment. Man was not the center of the Universe, but a part. This paradigm shift shook Christiandom to its roots. Man wasn't looked upon as a special creation. Then came Darwin's evolutionary theory, which associated man to the animal Kingdom. No longer was man created in "God's image", but an animal image. How did this affect man's understanding of himself, the world in which he lived and what these theories meant to man's life in the real world?
In mathmatical theory, there is a disagreement about whether man discovers the "laws of Nature' OR man "creates expressions that describe Nature" more effectively. Which is it? Does it matter?
Everything rests on theory. As the saying goes, "the Devil is in the details"!
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Separation of Church and State and Individual Conscience
The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”
James Madison quote
"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion." 1797 the treaty of Tripoli, signed by President Washington, and approved by the Senate of the United States
"Almighty God hath created the mind free; all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments of burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in His almighty power to do." Thomas Jefferson, Acts for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia, 1785.
"I am tolerant of all creeds. Yet if any sect suffered itself to be used for political objects I would meet it by political opposition. In my view church and state should be separate, not only in form, but fact. Religion and politics should not be mingled." Millard Fillmore (1809-1865) 13th U.S. President (Millard Fillmore, address during the 1856 presidential election; from Albert Menendez and Edd Doerr, eds., Great Quotations on Religious Freedom, Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2002, p. 70.)
"There is not a precept in the New Testament to compel, by civil law, any man who is not a Christian to pay any regard to the Lord's day, more than to any other day, and is without the authority of the christian religion. The gospel commands no duty which can be performed without faith in God. `Whatsoever is not of faith is sin' but to compel men destitute of faith to observe any Christian institution, such as the Lord's day, is commanding a duty to be performed without faith in God. Therefore, to command unbelievers, or natural men, to observe in any sense the Lord's day, is antievangelical, or contrary to the gospel." Alexander Campbell, Founder of Disciples of Christ Church Memoirs, Vol 1, pg 528.
"When religion is good, it will take care of itself. When it is not able to take care of itself, and God does not see fit to take care of it, so that it has to appeal to the civil power for support, it is evidence to my mind that its cause is a bad one." Benjamin Franklin, Statesman, Inventor, Author, Letter to Dr. Price.
"To discriminate against a thoroughly upright citizen because he belongs to some particular church, or because, like Abraham Lincoln, he has not avowed his allegiance to any church, is an outrage against the liberty of conscience, which is one of the foundations of American life." - Roosevelt's letter on religious liberty.
James Madison quote
"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion." 1797 the treaty of Tripoli, signed by President Washington, and approved by the Senate of the United States
"Almighty God hath created the mind free; all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments of burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in His almighty power to do." Thomas Jefferson, Acts for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia, 1785.
"I am tolerant of all creeds. Yet if any sect suffered itself to be used for political objects I would meet it by political opposition. In my view church and state should be separate, not only in form, but fact. Religion and politics should not be mingled." Millard Fillmore (1809-1865) 13th U.S. President (Millard Fillmore, address during the 1856 presidential election; from Albert Menendez and Edd Doerr, eds., Great Quotations on Religious Freedom, Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2002, p. 70.)
"There is not a precept in the New Testament to compel, by civil law, any man who is not a Christian to pay any regard to the Lord's day, more than to any other day, and is without the authority of the christian religion. The gospel commands no duty which can be performed without faith in God. `Whatsoever is not of faith is sin' but to compel men destitute of faith to observe any Christian institution, such as the Lord's day, is commanding a duty to be performed without faith in God. Therefore, to command unbelievers, or natural men, to observe in any sense the Lord's day, is antievangelical, or contrary to the gospel." Alexander Campbell, Founder of Disciples of Christ Church Memoirs, Vol 1, pg 528.
"When religion is good, it will take care of itself. When it is not able to take care of itself, and God does not see fit to take care of it, so that it has to appeal to the civil power for support, it is evidence to my mind that its cause is a bad one." Benjamin Franklin, Statesman, Inventor, Author, Letter to Dr. Price.
"To discriminate against a thoroughly upright citizen because he belongs to some particular church, or because, like Abraham Lincoln, he has not avowed his allegiance to any church, is an outrage against the liberty of conscience, which is one of the foundations of American life." - Roosevelt's letter on religious liberty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
