Why Do Pragmatic Solutions Not Answer the Ideals?

Pragmatism is living in the real world. It application of knowledge, as in technology. It is life experience, which is activism, and service oriented jobs. So, why does pragmatism leave some humans "cold"? Why are "ideals" so important to move "the human", whether ideals are used by the poltician to gain the vote, or the marketer to gain the sale. Humans respond to ideals.

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"!

Church Gets Less Interesting and Threatening to the Personal

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!!!

Funny How Christians "Use" Language

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.

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"!

Can All We Have Be Faith?

Today's sermon was about faith in the "unseen". The scripture about the blind man being healed by Jesus was the text. The pastor's premise was that belief in the unseen world of "God" will help you "see" the unseen realities of "God".  This is faith. Indeed, it does take faith, so what does that mean? It predominately means that one bases their understanding of life and all that is on faith's premises of "text and/or tradition".

All humans have reason, but not all of us use our reasoning capacity in the same way. Those that believe based on "faith's claims" either must use their reasoning abilities to believe in Aristotle's God of the past. God is the First Cause. And even, if one suggests that God is not the first Cause, but that "God'" superintends evolution, one is still believing in a "god" outside the sphere of human reality. Then,, there are those that believe that "god is present within reality itself". Natural causes, such as man's choices are irrevocably "God's design", because God oversees the choices men make to "work all things out together for good", for those "called according to his purpose".  One still has to interpret experience by "faith" in the text and/or tradition, confining reason to an "inside' group mentality. This is called God's foreknowledge. God understands the evil choices that men will make and somehow that becomes "his will". We are to submit and obey to all circumstances, for this is the "will of God in Christ Jesus, concerning you"! (I wonder what leadership does, then? Sit back, trust "god", and obey? No, they are the ones accountable for making policy that plays into life. And leaders that do so to restrict another liberty are tyrannical.) This is why men and "god" cannot be above the law Our Constitution defines good government where each human is valued and has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Good governmen, as well as good leadership allows for individual liberty and choice of value. Good government is based on the consent of the governed.

The Text is not a supernatural "Gift that fell From heaven", but a human testimony of experience/belief. And these beliefs were based on an ancient paradigm, not a modern scientific understanding. But, just as much as the Text is not "supernatural", neither is Tradition Tradition is really history about the social and political context that formed the scripture/text itself. Church history is also within the context of a larger context of world history. Tradition is a specified history, based on the social/political history of the Church.

Faith-based reasoning isn't justifiable except to those that believe, because of its group mentality, and/or irrational claims of faith. Faith becomes only defined by one's choice of commitment of value. Does one find a faith community of benefit to one's life journey? If so, these faith communities will define one's faith for you. This is how the Protestant denominations have worked, even though Protestantism was resistance to defining authority. As the Protestant faith is a foundational principle to America's understanding of religion, America does not allow the State to sancton one faith above another. Some may not choose to value a faith communities' defining faith. And these will find themselves as "outliers" to faith communities. Some of the Founding Fathers were "outliers" to orthodox Christian faith and America was to be tolerant toward such faith/beliefs.

Those that use reason to justify faith are apologists. These use their reason to justify faith claims about "God's intervention" in the world, or "God", as the world. One takes God as the over-seer, while the other sees "god" as the world, itself. One focuses on a supernatural God, while the other focuses on a natural God; the God of the philosophers.

It is very dangerous to believe that one's faith is absolute, because faith is context specific (denomination or religion). Therefore,good government cannot be based on "faith claims", because then, government would have to sanction a certain specified faith, which our First Amendment forbids. We became a country that had no allegience to one size fits all "faith". America believes in the indivdiual's right of choice about that value. And America also defends those that don't have that value, just as well!

Our pastor ended his sermon by suggesting that when one was at work and chose to talk about the "Tea Party" movement to use biblical or religious language! I thought that this sleight of hand was a way for him to gain the Christian Right's attention to religious ideals and values of the "religious left", instead of economic, democratic, and political values of capitalism.

Our government and the West in general believes that individuals have a right to disagree and be a part of the political process. How does one see government and the individual? Is government to have positive liberties and rights, or is the individual to have these positive rights? Is government to be understood to only have negative liberties and rights, or is the individual to only have negative liberties and rights? Our Founders believed in limited government. That is negative liberties and rights. This is the basis of Constitutional balance of power. One cannot have a government based on government power, otherwise, those governing have all the power, while the people are pawns to government dictates.  This is a dangerous position because such thinking leaves room for radical liberal ideologues to gain power in our government without any question from the Right. We must maintain the balancing of views so that our government will not be run without accountability to "the other side". Otherwise, our governemnt will be defined by a "one size fits all" and such governing would be tyrannical to those that disagree!

Irregardless of what the pastor said today, the political realm is the real world and whether one believes in god or not, one must live in and under the type of government that exists in/over one's society.

Why I Think Believing Iis Dangerous in the World of Science and Scientists

Belief in the supernatural realm is dangerous, because it denies the real world and tries to blame "the devil" or accepts passivly such things as tyranny, abuse, and evil. Such thinking does not lead one to learn, grow or expand, becuase "God will take care of you". Whenever suffering or injustice happens, it is chalked up to "God's training ground, because God doesn't allow anything to happen unless it is in his Divine Purpose, Plan and Will. Tyranny, abuse and evil in the world is not challenged, it is accepted as "God's rule on earth", whereas, each person deserves the right to exist, be respected and given opportunity.

Today, science frames our reality and understanding differently than in the past. Science is showing us more and more how the world works and what probably happened from the beginning. Humans may not be the only life in the universe. We just don't know for sure...

Where the Church used to teach man as the center of the universe, science undermined that understanding where it became known that the Sun was the center of our solar system and we are only one solar system in the universe. This fact alone is humbling to man, as he is not the ultimate focus of all things.

Man becomes responsible in this "universe" because he no longer depends upon a God out there, but takes on responsibility for himself. People do disagree as to what is the responsibility of man toward himself, the environment and others will be. And these differences are not easy black and white solutions in a world that is filled with diverse ways of understanding and thinking.

So, believeing is dangerous because it limits, defines and dismisses the greater questions about life, and the world we live.

"Equality Under Law"

Americans value equality, but not at the expense of liberty, as without liberty, there is NO equality. Liberty values the right to "offend" because we affirm freedom of speech and the press. There should be no "political correct" viewpoint, unless we want to support a politically empowered ruling class. A "political correct" viewpoint is propaganda, nothing less and is used to undermine liberty to "form" society.

Government is to protect our liberties, IF we are "equal before the law"! What has become defined as "equal under law" is defined on economic justice, and not equal opportunity. Economic justice distributes according to the "standard" that the ruling class deems "sufficient", "moral", "right" or "just". Economic justice attempts to build society through de-motivation of incentive. Humans are to be "moral" in their limiting themselves for the "sake of others". This becomes insane because it enables one class, at the expense of the other class. It is "class warfare" and it is done, so that reactions will "cause" a "crack-down" on society for "a restored order". The result will be 'ordered government" at the expense of human rights, value and liberty, itself.

Religion is also not to be absolutized in its "way of thinking". Religious wars and religious intolerance has been the source of human sacrifice and also a limitation on free speech. Religion defines itself by doctrines of "God". And God has "ruled" over humans in conforming them to religious understanding.

Both absolute government or absolute religion will undermine human liberty and our Constitutional government. America must understand itself as diverse, humane, and just about "equality under law". We are a people who believe in "ordered liberty"!

"Humanity or the Nation-State"?

The journey of "faith" or "discovery of self" has been excrusiatingly painful, at times. The struggle to "beome" a "self", independent and free, not from society, but for society. This is what evey human being does at different stages of their life. It is called human development.

Recently, on another blog, it became obvious to me, at least, that the choice and conflict between one's identification factors have been the basis of America's "culture wars". What do I mean by that?

Our "culture wars" are based on two distinct ways of viewing the world. One has an affirmation of "humanity" as the epitome of "the good". The other side fights for "individuality" and "the right". While humanity is where the universality of human rights is affirmed; the other is where the nation-state and Constitutional government is affirmed. Both are values Americans hold!

This morning on another blog site, bloggers were asked to choose whether they would affirm God's existance or not. It was an experiment, of sorts, to determine whether "good" exists apart from God. It is called the "Euthyphro Dilemma". One side, reason says "good" exists apart from "God". The other side says that "good" doesn't exist apart from "god".  I could not choose, as it became evident to me that I affirm both! Why or How can I affirm both? Both are American values.

America affirms indivdiuality, personal choice, and protection 'under law". In our form of government, "self" and other" are affirmed. The "good" and the "right" are defined by "equal under law". I affirm that "self" and "other" exist and have a right to exist. "Self" is indviduality, choice, and value. And "self" has to do with "rights", while "other" has to do with "society" and government. So, both "self and other", 'individuality and society" have the right to exist, but where individiuals in a free nation such as ours will choose to affirm or value one side or the other, will depend on what they desire to do or be. This is a choice of value.

Now I Get IT (Kant Must Be Proved)

A long time ago when I was in undergraduate school, I had a professor who idealized Kant. He would uphold the value of the "habit of virtue" and "human flourishing". His ideal was acting according to a "standard" of habit, as "human flourishing " was the goal.

Another professor that I had also wanted to do a "study on Kant", just as another liked the idea of an Eastern Christology. These liked the idea of virtue in a world that is filled with dishonestly (The Noble Lie) and personal gain. So, what these aspired to was a behavioral experiment of sorts.

"God was in Christ reconciling the world," The language is theological, but the experiment was a human one. This is a belief in a divinized human being, a saint, if you will. But, can one "create" a saint from the outside, that is, "form" a person by manipulation, and control?

Yes, I think this can and does happen, but not to those who are attuned to such manipulation and controls. These are those who have "understood that language all their lives. And the greater offense is the betrayal of everything that was good, noble and kind in the world. What they thought was to be trusted has left a gaping hole in the heart and life.

What God wants is Personal Sacrifice, as this is True Faith. One is to die for a cause, alto one might not know what the cause is really for. And yet, one is to believe that "God loves them, personally"! No, it is not God loving the Sacrificed; it is God loving others through the sacrifice. This is the life to be embraced, as this is maturity.

 But, isn't this an object lesson to those that want to do such social engineering? and manipulation of the "facts" and the life or another human being? Faith has to be a peronsl choice of value, not an engineered social experiment.

Evil is not understood as an objective, but a personal experience. This justifies what science does to prove the validity of faith. It doesn't seem short of Facist.

Humans might not be equal in all their abilities, but that doesn't negate their individual value. This is why I've been blogging about individualism. Without intellectual humility, "social" or "collectivity" leads to genocide. This is proven by social psychologist. It is group behavior at its worst!

Our nation has gotten to the point of dividing over "the good" or "the right".  And it is collective thinking. And caught in the midst of these fights are those that have lost hope altogether, because of the life left to them.

My brother's suicide taught me that one cannot tell another what is "right", because the personal weight of what seems "the right" might be the "last straw". Was my brother's suicide a lack of faith? Would one judge his life as a life that lacked "character"? I just wonder how his life really matters to those that make such judgments!

Liberty FOR Expression

The ARTS are a universal language, and I am committed to "free speech". The two complement one another in individual expressions of gifting. Free  and open government  is a needed environment for such development. It is the devleopment of creativity. Religion does not lend itself to liberal expression, as things are labeled as "holy" or defiled, etc.

The Reformation's destruction of many art works is a case in point. Because the Reformers believed in a literal "Thou Shalt Not Make Any Graven Image....", they believed that they had an obligation to destroy works of art that symbolized the transcendent world. How sad.

Science invents new ways of understanding reality which also challenges the religious world, because God isn't seen as the absolute cause.

Both the humanities and science have brought untold advantages and benefit to society. We must continue to protect and advance these areas of knowledge.

What Unites and Makes America Distinct? (or exceptional)

America was founded on liberty. This is what unifies us, not God. The problem today, is there is a global move to disintegrate American exceptionalism through unifying under God. And such moves are re-defining our Constitution, as well as our understanding of our nation-state.

America did not prescribe to a "one size fits all" religion.America was founded on Protestant "faith", not prescribed religion per se. This was our distinctiveness, religious liberty. But, today, it seems there is a move to define God, in montheism. This is going backwards, not forwards in our understanding of " the human" and  "the humane". If God exists, He cannot be proved. But, this is the point to those of piestic faith. Lifestyle is the focus of such. But, whenever piestic faith is prescribed by law, we have a regimented faith, where people are no longer free, but in bondage to the prescription.

It becomes more and more evident that Islam is not going to be tolerant of others, but want tolerance toward their religious convictions/claims. This is dangerous territory, as humans have "been down this road" before. What are we to do? We should not respond or live in fear of terrorism, or the terrorists have "won".

Life is not of value, so how do we battle such, when our society values life and its diversity? We are a humane society and believe that human life is valuable above all other forms of life, at least this was the traditional understanding. Today, religion and science have undermined our basic value of life and liberty because of their various understanding of priorities. God is at the end of religion, while utility is at the other end, of scientific commitment.

What transpires to and in our society, when the basic values that have held us together, liberty, have become challenged? Liberty is the foundation and is ordered under law. Authoritarian regimes and ways of understanding the world (mathmatical) undermine this basic value.

Patrick Henry said it well, "Give me liberty, or give me death"!

The Political Is the Real

Tonight Glenn Beck discussed "restoring" America.  But, unlike some of his past programs, I disagreed as to how this is to come about. His was a vision of spiritual renewal, and commitment from citizens to re-align themselves.

While I do agree no one should try to control another in a free society, the only one they really have control over is themself, I do not agree that spiritualizing "self-governance", is imperative. Why would I say this?

Augustine was the one who transformed the Christian vision to the "other world".  His "vision" was the world of the transcendent God, who prepared the "City of God". And this "world" was to give hope to those who'd been disappointed when Rome was destroyed. Hopefully, this will not be the case for America. And today, man himself is the point of question, as evolution has trumped special creation. The focus today is on "man", not God.

Many have tried to implement Marxist "class envy and warfare" into our public discourse, which has done nothing other than divide our nation over envious feelings about material gain. The purpose, I imagine is the "redistribution of wealth" so poverty is addressed. The issue of poverty is not what America has been about. America has understood herself as a land of opportunity and prosperity. A land where people could find their own "way of life".  America's "hope" has been political freedom. But, now, our political freedom has brought about division not just over how money should be "handled" (by the individual or the government), but also how we should treat our enemies.

Those that have an idealistic view of man affirm "love", as the Christian/humanist mandate. Love is not the practical terminology or actual requirement of political action. Love is a personal term, while other terms such as duty, or responsibility fit more appropriately in the political realm.

The question that divides again is over what is our responsibility or duty as American citizens? Is our responsibility for the whole world, or is it for our nation? And then, is our responsibility over those in poverty, addictions, criminal behavior, or what? All of us cannot be concerned and focused on the same issues if our country and how the world's needs are to be met. This is why how one understands and commits is dependent on what one values most and why.

 Is our responsibility for our nation, or for our families? or both? It has often been said that the nation is only as strong as its families. And this is true, I believe. Other matters that concern our nation are matters that will always divide our nation, even, "Christian" citizens. Is the political or real world policies not more important, than the transcendent? I believe so. Nothing impacts the child more than their family of origin, and this arena has also become politicized. It is no longer the parent who must raise their child, but the State. ( And yet, I know that there are those parents who will not do right by the child, in regards to giving the child the best opportunity to succeed. Should the State intervene? And how?)

I am weary of faith, culture, and politics, as I think it has been a useful tool in the hands of the empowered at the disadvantage/discrimination of the "Christian". Values have been defined for the "Christian" by others, so that these will fit their mold, opinion or value. So, being "human" is a more important value for/to me, than "being a Christian", as being 'human" recognizes that I have common needs, desires, and opinions, as any other person.  Being a Christian, only means that there are others that define your life by their own standards and demand obedience to what they find is "ultimate".

I find the "ultimate" in our American culture, where individual liberty is valued and protected.

Personal Reflections Lead to Self-Understanding on 'God".

I believe it is horrendously dangerous for people to go about their daily life without self-reflection. Why? Because without self-reflection one cannot ascertain the reasons why they do or believe as they do. And without a rationale, there really is no reason to choose one way above another in deciding a course of action, except for human social convention.

My personal reflections have come about over my responses, or should I say reactions to certain situations, I find myself in. If one cannot respond reasonably, then one's reaction is a give-away to "stakes" in the fight. And those stakes are stakes of identity, or wounds that must be healed.

One of the biggest challenges to me, is the issue of choice. Choice is necessary for indviduality, personal value and affirmation of one's ideals.

Children have need of safety and security because they are developing their identities. Without safe and secure environments, then, the child is left with anxiety about the dire neccessities in life and without hope to fulfill his personal identity.

Children grow, explore and develop their interests when adults support them, and even further their "discoveries". And interests that develop in childhood are interests that become passions in young adulthood. Passions lead to pursuits of life goals and education that end in a life given to that passion.

For the child, divorced families are challenged to meet the needs of safe and security, so he can explore and develop interests. These safety and security issues can be strongholds that deter the young adult from developing passions and pursuing goals later in life. And inevitably, an overly cautious, or overly reactive child can be the result of such an environment.

I have found that my own reactions and fear of being controlled has its roots grounded in my early childhood. When divorced children do not have any choice about the events that "control their lives", they feel helpless, insecure and unsafe. Thus, "God" enters in to "help" the child to defend themselves in an unsafe and insecure world. "God will work all things together", etc. etc. God's Providence is viewed as safety, security and assurance of "goodwill". But, these coping skills are not healthy past the point of childhood. "Self" is not developed when one has an unhealthy need for dependence.

"God" is used in place of seeking, pursuing, developing, and taking responsibility for oneself. And this taking responsibility is also a challenge for me, as I fear responsibility, because of the "perfectionism' of the adults in my life, as a child. Great anxiety transpires when I fear failure, so why tramp over that territory if there are so many pits one can "fall into"? Besides, no one 'needs" what I have to offer anyway? Who am I?

These messages are messages of self-hatred, and self-rejection. These messages were tempered by a religious coping skill. I believed that God loved me, personally. This brought me a sense of being valued, individually and specifically. But, my realization that no one is particularly special was not a new one, it was just put into a new frame. The new frame was one of a 'vast void' of human insignificance.

If humans have no innate significance, then the only way to significance is what one does. And what one does, breeds an atmosphere of competitive drive for success to be valued. It is the 'survival of the fittest" that define who gets on top. And the rest of humanity dries up under the sun of pointless absurdities that intrude upon their life with regular 'humiliations'.

The "survival of the fittest" leaves me with anxiety, because I have been "taught" that I was not "the fittest". This "view" has nothing to do with evolution, but it has a lot to do with my own self-concept.

So, what is the point? The point is that religion can de-value, as well as value "the human". And when religion intrudes upon the individual, determining and confining choice, then religion has ceased its value, because of its devaluation of the individual, as significance.

At the same time, when religion limits 'self-development' because of its zeal for absolute certainty about "God" who cannot be confined to our safe and rational 'solutions', then religion has stepped over and ignored the very purpose of its existence; Man.

Why I Think "God" Is the Problem

I think "God" is a problem for humans, because God, if he exists, is beyond our capacity to verify. And because there are so many ways in which God has been understood, it only leads to endless speculations.

Those that think that God has given them special priviledge or rights can act arrogantly or presumptively toward others, who differ in their understandings. And those that think that God has revealed all that needs to be known in scriptures, are doubly dangerous.

Some have thought that "God" was a projection of our wishes, others think that "God" is a fulfillment of our wishes. These views are underwritten by psychological science.

Anthropologists understand myth as a cultural value in describing "God" and these myths bring meaning to life in various cultural contexts. But, is meaning important when meaning skews the real world of values?

Sociologists understand that communities of faith are ways that humans find significance, value and belonging and sometimes, even their very identity. But, the basis of our identity is multi-dimensional. We are identified by our families of origin, our religion, our country, our friends, our social connections, our jobs, our personalities, and what we value most.

Each of these social sciences are not interested in whether there is really a "real God" who exists, but the practical reasons, and implications of such belief.

If one believes that family is the most basic foundation of identity, an individual's life is formed by the values that are held within the family. But, American society has dissolved family connections through many avenues of pursuing the American Dream. And the pursuit of the American Dream has led to countless divorce, child neglect, blended families, domestic abuse, and a de-valueing of family, as a whole.

The child so formed in such an environment of disorder and chaos, leaves the child with little to identify with, and a depth of loss that cannot be filled easily with finding other solutions. These need a healthy dose of therapy and help from others in society.

These children can experience osterizicism and criticism from the "Chrstian world" where things are "nice and neat". The attitude can be: "What's wrong with "That" family", or " We don't want our children to be influenced by "them". The child so labelled suffers doubly from isolation and a sense that everything is their fault.

So, "God" is useful to promote moral outrage at those who need what society needs to give. The "Christian Ideal" is seldom the real truth of the matter, no matter how devout or devoted. And Christians should be honest about this. Otherwise, there is no hope for anyone.

"God" is useless, as far as I am concerned for real solutions in the real world. Christians need to stop running to be "christian" and attempt to be human and learn to be a real person in a real world with real needs.

I used to believe in "God" as anesthesia to my pain. And I used "God" as a replacement for self-acceptance and coming to terms with reality. If God accepted me, then I could have permission to accept myself. But, self-acceptance is taking responsibility for one's own personal choices and decisions and not looking to communities, whether of faith or not, to validate one's choice, and commitments.

Reality is painful because there are many problems in the world and no theology, scripture, doctrine, church, or christian will "fix it", because the world is broken beyond repair. And our only hope is recognizing that and being there for another, while attempting to rectify what we personally think will help most.

Simplistic Thinking

I hate simplistic thinking. And I have identified a hatred to this "simplicity" with Voltaire's "Candide". I have valid reasons for such hatred and I think I am justified in such hatred.

I hate simplistic thinking because leaders who make policy must think through their goals and think about how best to implement them. Simplistic thinking in leadership does not take into account the vast complexity of such goals, if these goals are set in complex networks and situations. The world itself is such a context. Those that follow such leaders are prone to pay the costs of such "simplicity".

I hate simplistic thinking because it leads others to follow uncritically. These people are bound to "pay the costs" without realizing it. But, they are pawns to the deceptive manipulation or lack of forethought of their leaders. Such people are simplistic themselves and are uncritical to life, the world, and its politics.

I hate simplistic thinking because it isn't based upon real problems in the real world, but pacifies these problems with platitudes of "answers" that fall short of coherency. "God" is used in such a way.

I hate simplistic thinking because I and those I love have paid a price for such thinking. This is how I have learned to not think simplistically. Simplicity is navete'.

Simplicity is the way children think, but this way of thinking must be outgrown, if we are to be good for the real world.

Representative Government

Representative Government is what we need today. We, the people, are to be valued. We are not a theocracy or a democracy, in the proper sense.

When we represent someone, whether a lawyer in the courts, or a Congressman in the House or Senate, these are to be servant leaders, not arrogant or self-serving in their interests in public office. The people vote because of their confidence in a particular candidate. They believe in the campaign promises, and value the platform the candidate represents.

But, all too often, our representatives are bought off by Big Interests, Special Interests and slough it off as a necessary "gain" for the public interest. The public thinks it has been hoodwinked and it is a recipe for damaging the public's interest in their government and civic duty, at large. There is no end to the news about public officials and their indiscretions when it comes to their public trust.

I wonder, since history has borne out that our Founders, or any of those who we "idealize" have feet of clay, just as our present day politicians do? What we want to remember are the "ideals" that we value. But, because of the public's intense interest in private life, biographies have been written that expose such indiscretions of past representatives. And these books sell. Does America want to be ambivalant toward their government and their Representatives in public office?

Representation is known first in one's family of origin. Psychologists have known that children get their view of "God" through their family, the father, being an important imprinter of the child's value.

In ancient societies where the peasant class had no say about their life, other than to serve their patrons, or slave-masters, "God" was know to be represented by leadership. This was how the peasant class came to formulate their understanding of "God". If an unjust ruler ruled, they deemed that God was "above" or "over" that unjust ruler. Theirs was a passive state of submission to the dominating culture.

Enlightened societies have understood that all people should have a voice and have a sense of empowerment when it comes to their government. This was our Founder's "formula" in the Declaration of Independence. Government was no longer to represent "God", or the "King", but the people.

In the light of limited power and limited government, I wonder if limiting terms in Congress would be a good idea? Would limiting terms to 6 or 8 years, and rotating state elections, where there would always be someone in power that has "been there", and had the experience to "inform" the "freshmen", who are new in the "halls of Congressional power". Would it not only limit Congressmen from building 'empires", legislating laws that promote their own personal interests, and get more people involved in serving their country?

Maybe I need to read up on the reasons why Congress was set to serve with unlimited terms of power. Is it a possibility that what has transpired today was never imagined in the past?

The PROBLEM With Culture

Culture is context. Context defines who we are, as human beings. Culture determines values, as they impact how one assesses "right and wrong". In the West, we depend on reason and use science to bring understanding. American culture affirms individuals and their 'reason". This is a universal as it allows diverse views within a unified nation. Or are we unified?

Many are concerned as our country is divided by the political realm. Our strengh could become our weakness if we do not continue to be open to "reason". Whether one values Republican or Deomocratic values, as it concerns social issues, we must learn to listen and THINK! Otherwise, we are headed to divide our nation and defeat progress in legislation, and our culture's impact on other needs she has.

I find that the ultimate value of our First Amendment right to freely allow information to flow, so that we can be better informed and make rational decisions, and become more "whole individual's as it concerns our own personal development. We have the tools in America to "become" because of our freedoms. Let us use them and defend them.

If Culture becomes an icon, we are headed for totaltarianism of some kind. Government cannot enforce itself upon human beings without there being oppressive. This is why we allow certain freedoms. Religious tradtions sometimes feels threatened by progressiveness, as tradition's understanding of itself is to remain "true" or "loyal" to what has been understood to be of value. And "god" is the ultimate value of religion. "God" in the modern West is being re-defined according to science's "evolution" and understanding of the physical world. This is troubling to some, as it undermines the personal, as understood in conservative or evangelical terms. I think the personal should be undermined, as otherwise, it becomes the "god of one's idolatry". God cannot be understood in complete form, so this should comfort those who fear science's challenge to religion's value and loyalty to "god".

America is the universal standard for an "ideal" government, as the ideal is connected to the real world and it allows the personal to "exist" in the indivdiual's values, and convictions. America affirms the universals of freedom and justice for all, because of its affirmation of all voices in the public square.

There Is No More Christian Experience

Human experience is the universal affirmation of all beings. Human experience does not have to define things in religious ways, although, it can. Experience is about life and all that makes life in this world. It has little to do with life in the here after, as we just don't know about that kind of life.

In reading today, one blog site that I subscribe to, talked about the Founding Fathers and their faith. Their faith had a range between orthodoxy and Deism. The middle ground was called theistic rationalism, or Unitarian. It was a middle way between the naturalism of Deism and the supernaturalism of orthodoxy. This is palatable for me personally, at least, at first glance.

What is a theistic rationalist? A rationalist believes in reason as a guiding force for one's life, while theism affirms a "god" beyond natural forces, and causal influences. The part that I struggle with is the personability of "god". I just don't see that this is the case in reality.

Circumstances are interpreted from a certain veiwpoint. Bias, or faith, is what predisposes one to the interpretation. Reason seems to be more plausible in discerning how one will understand reality, not faith alone.

If Faith supplements reason, then, how do we know if this is our posture, that our faith is just a "trust" about the "mystery", which may or may not be "god"? Providence is not something that I find reasonable. There are too many questions about evil and suffering to forego them for "faith" in the providence of "god". So, I don't think that commitment to a "god" that is to be believed in spite of rationale is not a promising prospect of "hope".

You Have No Choice as a traditional Christian

You have no choice as a Christian, because you must subscribe to "His plan", as defined by the prescribed authority. You have no choice because your life is already determined! You just need to find out what is determined for you and "Submit". Submission is a virtue that is of highest value to those "over you", as it shows how much you "trust God". And faith is most of all how one "trusts God". Faith in not about reason. No, faith is about going into the fire or into the den of lions, or into the presence of 'the king" without qualms, because "God is with you". Faith is brainless, because a child can believe and that is what the "kingdom is about". One who has grown in faith is one who is childlike and uses the proper terms so that others know that they have been intitiated into the special group of the "born again".

If one has become "intitiated" into this "special group", then one is immune to certain things that the "common person" is not. Some people of faith believe that they are immune to physcial illness, others believe that faith gives you immunity to poverty, while others believe that faith subverts the social structures themselves so that one is protected from death. And even in death, one is immune because the faithful will inherit eternal life.

I find that faith is for those who do not want to take political action, but submit to their "lot in life". Life is about politics, as that is where one lives their life and make their choices. Choice is about determining what is of most imporatance and value. And Christians believe that "god" and "others" should be the greatest importance.

But, those in Scripture had no choice for the most part, as their "lot in life" was not our democracy. Our democracy allows the individual to choose and determine their values. And any individual can "worship god" in doing whatever they desire with diligence and delight....