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"!
Showing posts with label . liberty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label . liberty. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Sunday, June 19, 2011
The Need for an Objective Law to Uphold a Free Society
[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 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
Friday, June 17, 2011
The Principles of a Free Society!
Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness — Principles of a Free Society
principlesofafreesociety.com
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness — Principles of a Free Society
principlesofafreesociety.com
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
The Voluntary Military and Peace
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!
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!
Monday, May 23, 2011
The Military Draft and Individual Interests
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!
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!
Sunday, May 22, 2011
"The Gospel" and the Modern State....
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"?
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"?
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.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
The Tyranny of the "Other"
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!
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!
Friday, April 29, 2011
In Light of Facism.....
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 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!
Monday, April 25, 2011
The "Hope" of the Human Heart and Negotiating on Difference
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.
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.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
The More I Think About Morality
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"!
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"!
Friday, April 15, 2011
Society, Change and the Political Climate
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?
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?
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Binary Thinking, Deconstruction, and the Reconstruction in the "New World Order"
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"?
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"?
Friday, April 1, 2011
Moral Realism and Language Games
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 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"!
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Christianity Is Dead
Christianity is dead, at least my husband read something this morning that made him question me. I told him about the discussions going on in the blogospehere and how many books were out about the "death of Christianity". Why is Christianity or religion dying? And does it matter?
Some have suggested that the death of Christianity has come about because the social needs of our population has gotten met through the social media. People have contact at anytime and anywhere these days. So, why go to church to find a place to be affirmed?This is the challenge of "belonging".
Others have suggested that the theology of the Church just doesn't measure up to our scientific knowledge these days. How can one believe that Jesus rose from the dead, or that people can do miracles? These are fairy tales, or myths that make life more bearable, when life is hard. This is the challenge of belief.
Still, some have sought to re-frame theology so that the Church is more "up to date". These have reframed "God" himself, as a process, a becoming, or our experience itself is "god in the making". God is the Present, "I Am" and incorporates all of reality (panentheism). These are not orthodox views. This is the challenge of behavior.
Some have seen this challenge to Christian faith as a challenge to know what/where Christian faith began. These go into scholarly debates about Judean roots and what happened to the Arab. How did ethicities get defined? And what protects their identities. These are questions that serve the work of "peace". Because ethnic identities are what make for 'war'. This is an attempt to re-create a new political belief structure, so Man can understand himself as "human" and not by religous identifications or ethnic identities.
The Christian "end" has also been challenged. It used to be that Christianity understood itself historically. History was "God's history". The teleos of all history was the advent of "Christ" or the second coming. Traditional Christians still believe in a coming judgment, and heaven and hell. But, these also believe in a separate reality/realm, the spritual realm.
Christianity is dead for all practical reasons. But, maybe this is not so bad, as Christianity is about how one sees oneself and others, and rightly or wrongly, Christians see themselves as superior beings, because of their promised eternal life. They are prone to think that those without faith are to be pitied, as they are reprobate.
As an "outsider", Christians like to define themselves by their cateogories where they are the prime arbitrator of truth and values. They are confident that what they believe is absolute for everyone, everywhere. And this is where they miss the mark of finding themselves free from defining themselves by faith alone. What do they personally value apart from any religious claims, do they even know? Why do they value it?
This is my concern. Those that are religous are prone to judge without thinking. And they are prone to throw verses around as if life serves people "black and white" situations and circumstances". Everything is "nice and neatly" organized in their frame of reference and if others don't have themselves organized in such a way, they are a threat to society. While I do not doubt at ALL that organization and order is very important, humans are not commodities to be put in boxes or compartments that frame their lives apart from human contingencies.
Political parties organize their platforms simply. But reality gives politicians complex situations to face. These situations challenge their political promises, because politics serves out contingencies too. We can't control what another country does or doesn't do, ultimately. We can co-operate, negotiate, or sanction, bomb or bring out the troops. But, are we different from those that also seek to have a life?
Government itself is a form of order/structure that seeks to circumvent what is of value. Free societies allow liberty where it concerns human life. Dictators, authoritarian power structures are those that believe that "order" should not be horozonally controlled, but hierarchally. These claim power for themselves, and some do it in the "name of God". This is why those that believe that "God" is not just an idea in one's mind, but a real reality are dangerous to our liberties. But, then, the religious are also Americans, and it is important that they also have a voice.
One thing for sure, humans are a diverse species. We are not clones of one another, though there are similarities in what we desire, how we define that in our lives is vastly different in a free society! And certainly, government is made to prevent desires from running over another's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!
Some have suggested that the death of Christianity has come about because the social needs of our population has gotten met through the social media. People have contact at anytime and anywhere these days. So, why go to church to find a place to be affirmed?This is the challenge of "belonging".
Others have suggested that the theology of the Church just doesn't measure up to our scientific knowledge these days. How can one believe that Jesus rose from the dead, or that people can do miracles? These are fairy tales, or myths that make life more bearable, when life is hard. This is the challenge of belief.
Still, some have sought to re-frame theology so that the Church is more "up to date". These have reframed "God" himself, as a process, a becoming, or our experience itself is "god in the making". God is the Present, "I Am" and incorporates all of reality (panentheism). These are not orthodox views. This is the challenge of behavior.
Some have seen this challenge to Christian faith as a challenge to know what/where Christian faith began. These go into scholarly debates about Judean roots and what happened to the Arab. How did ethicities get defined? And what protects their identities. These are questions that serve the work of "peace". Because ethnic identities are what make for 'war'. This is an attempt to re-create a new political belief structure, so Man can understand himself as "human" and not by religous identifications or ethnic identities.
The Christian "end" has also been challenged. It used to be that Christianity understood itself historically. History was "God's history". The teleos of all history was the advent of "Christ" or the second coming. Traditional Christians still believe in a coming judgment, and heaven and hell. But, these also believe in a separate reality/realm, the spritual realm.
Christianity is dead for all practical reasons. But, maybe this is not so bad, as Christianity is about how one sees oneself and others, and rightly or wrongly, Christians see themselves as superior beings, because of their promised eternal life. They are prone to think that those without faith are to be pitied, as they are reprobate.
As an "outsider", Christians like to define themselves by their cateogories where they are the prime arbitrator of truth and values. They are confident that what they believe is absolute for everyone, everywhere. And this is where they miss the mark of finding themselves free from defining themselves by faith alone. What do they personally value apart from any religious claims, do they even know? Why do they value it?
This is my concern. Those that are religous are prone to judge without thinking. And they are prone to throw verses around as if life serves people "black and white" situations and circumstances". Everything is "nice and neatly" organized in their frame of reference and if others don't have themselves organized in such a way, they are a threat to society. While I do not doubt at ALL that organization and order is very important, humans are not commodities to be put in boxes or compartments that frame their lives apart from human contingencies.
Political parties organize their platforms simply. But reality gives politicians complex situations to face. These situations challenge their political promises, because politics serves out contingencies too. We can't control what another country does or doesn't do, ultimately. We can co-operate, negotiate, or sanction, bomb or bring out the troops. But, are we different from those that also seek to have a life?
Government itself is a form of order/structure that seeks to circumvent what is of value. Free societies allow liberty where it concerns human life. Dictators, authoritarian power structures are those that believe that "order" should not be horozonally controlled, but hierarchally. These claim power for themselves, and some do it in the "name of God". This is why those that believe that "God" is not just an idea in one's mind, but a real reality are dangerous to our liberties. But, then, the religious are also Americans, and it is important that they also have a voice.
One thing for sure, humans are a diverse species. We are not clones of one another, though there are similarities in what we desire, how we define that in our lives is vastly different in a free society! And certainly, government is made to prevent desires from running over another's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Parallel Longings and Fulfillment
Choices in America are as various as there are types of people. We love to have choices. Take note of our supermarkets, or SuperWalMarts. The bigger the better because it accomodates all of us and our diverse tastes. Diversity is what makes America, well, America.
But, choice is much more than about the food we eat, or the clothes we choose to wear, but also the values we hold about life and what we want out of life. These all matter, too. An Ameican will 'fight for the right' to have alternatives and, to negotiate differences. This is what has motivated the American worker, as well as inspired the American entreprenuer. Everyone is "special" in America because there is always a place where one can find a "home". "Home" is about what the heart longs for and human hearts long for more than just a place to belong, but for "ideals". America values its ideals and we paint them in our wildest imagninations. And imagination reside only in individual human hearts.
The individual human heart longs for beauty, justice and love. Each individual cannot find that beauty, justice and love apart from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is what makes America great, because we believe that each individual counts and matters. And because of the individual's value in our society, he can choose how he defines the beauty of life. He is allowed the liberty, which is justice to follow his passion/love in the pursuit of happiness.
We are free in America in many ways to pursue our dreams, fulfill our hopes and find our lives in whatever endeavor we desire. I hope that this American Dream will last so my grandchildren will have the opportunities we so often take for granted. I am thankful to be an American.
But, choice is much more than about the food we eat, or the clothes we choose to wear, but also the values we hold about life and what we want out of life. These all matter, too. An Ameican will 'fight for the right' to have alternatives and, to negotiate differences. This is what has motivated the American worker, as well as inspired the American entreprenuer. Everyone is "special" in America because there is always a place where one can find a "home". "Home" is about what the heart longs for and human hearts long for more than just a place to belong, but for "ideals". America values its ideals and we paint them in our wildest imagninations. And imagination reside only in individual human hearts.
The individual human heart longs for beauty, justice and love. Each individual cannot find that beauty, justice and love apart from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is what makes America great, because we believe that each individual counts and matters. And because of the individual's value in our society, he can choose how he defines the beauty of life. He is allowed the liberty, which is justice to follow his passion/love in the pursuit of happiness.
We are free in America in many ways to pursue our dreams, fulfill our hopes and find our lives in whatever endeavor we desire. I hope that this American Dream will last so my grandchildren will have the opportunities we so often take for granted. I am thankful to be an American.
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"!
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Moral Order
Another comment on another blog got me thinking this morning. The comment was in the context of education. The comment stated, that some teachers are more geared toward order while others are geared toward content. I agree. And I hope I can express all the thoughts congealing in my mind concerning the issue of order and content.
Moral order has been understood as "government". Government is about maintaining the sturctures in society. But, when order/government is abolutized, then, there is little room for liberty or choice, as to valuei. This is a authoritarian government. It is the Christian view of Moral Order under "God".
Scriptures paint a picture of what happens to those that subvert authority. These are lawless persons, that are killed, or punished like Moses' siblings, or the grumblers in the desert. God is the absolute authority. There is no resistance to his will, as he is perfect and we must submit to him. Othewise, we are rebellious, and call for God's judgment!
Such are the view of the Westboro Baptist Church's view. They represent his repulsion over the "gay community" and the judgment, that is deserved by standing at the funeral and yelling at the parents.
Fortunatly, for all of us, our govenrment allows for freedom of speech to such as these, because we all can have freedom of speech. Liberty is what Americans value in our Constitutional government, which IS the moral order of our govenrment! Thank goodness we are not like Islam, under a theocratic government, that stones the adultress!!!
Moral order has been understood as "government". Government is about maintaining the sturctures in society. But, when order/government is abolutized, then, there is little room for liberty or choice, as to valuei. This is a authoritarian government. It is the Christian view of Moral Order under "God".
Scriptures paint a picture of what happens to those that subvert authority. These are lawless persons, that are killed, or punished like Moses' siblings, or the grumblers in the desert. God is the absolute authority. There is no resistance to his will, as he is perfect and we must submit to him. Othewise, we are rebellious, and call for God's judgment!
Such are the view of the Westboro Baptist Church's view. They represent his repulsion over the "gay community" and the judgment, that is deserved by standing at the funeral and yelling at the parents.
Fortunatly, for all of us, our govenrment allows for freedom of speech to such as these, because we all can have freedom of speech. Liberty is what Americans value in our Constitutional government, which IS the moral order of our govenrment! Thank goodness we are not like Islam, under a theocratic government, that stones the adultress!!!
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Discrimination Is the Means of Making Decisions
One must discriminate to make value judgments. Otherwise, one is doomed to be defined by others and their value judgments. Values are what form our decision making and what makes for discriminations.
Universalism is an Utopian ideal, but is not practical in the real world of politics. One must make choices about where to draw lines, and where and what makes for the "best life", for oneself and others.
Our Constitution allows liberty of judgemnts, where religions seeks to subvert such liberty. Our society, while free and liberal, is also in need of solutions to societal ills. Such ills as budget deficits, to local delinquency are of concern to citizens. The answers are complex and won't be easy to come by, as they infliterate into our very cultural meleiu. What makes America American.
Liberty is such a value. More than once, I've heard that liberty is associated with license. "License" has to be defined. The normal definition of "license" is offical permission to carry out a particular job by the proper authorities. Licenses are legal contracts. But, the context might make a significant differnce. The religious would define license as "against God's law". Such definition is a narrowly focused, but widely defined, as religions would define "God" and "law" differently. This difference is what makes for religous wars. And such wars are justified in the name of "God".
Our Constitution limits only those who'd limit others in their liberty to 'find their own way". Choice is a value in America, because we believe in individual liberty of conscience. But, American families are broken and Americans have lost thie "sense" about value, when they don't seem to care about anything other than watching the next episode of "The Bacholor". Children are raised with little sense of self, because their parents are too busy to make room for baby. I don't value this attitude, because young people need guidance, so that they can make wise choices about thier lives. Parents and others in the community are needed to encourage such emotional and character development.
Discrimination means that making choices might mean separating onself from things that are not valued, as much. Prioritizing such values is a necessary "education" about oneself and goal setting.
In our culture, "discrimination' has gotten a "bad" or negative definition, because it has so often been associated with racial, or sexual inquality. Equality is an American ideal, so the politically correct definition of discrimination never gets investigated. It is swallowed without thinking about what it might mean.
I am glad that America allows for inviduals to discriminate about thier own values and purposes, otherwise, I would be discriminated against!!
Universalism is an Utopian ideal, but is not practical in the real world of politics. One must make choices about where to draw lines, and where and what makes for the "best life", for oneself and others.
Our Constitution allows liberty of judgemnts, where religions seeks to subvert such liberty. Our society, while free and liberal, is also in need of solutions to societal ills. Such ills as budget deficits, to local delinquency are of concern to citizens. The answers are complex and won't be easy to come by, as they infliterate into our very cultural meleiu. What makes America American.
Liberty is such a value. More than once, I've heard that liberty is associated with license. "License" has to be defined. The normal definition of "license" is offical permission to carry out a particular job by the proper authorities. Licenses are legal contracts. But, the context might make a significant differnce. The religious would define license as "against God's law". Such definition is a narrowly focused, but widely defined, as religions would define "God" and "law" differently. This difference is what makes for religous wars. And such wars are justified in the name of "God".
Our Constitution limits only those who'd limit others in their liberty to 'find their own way". Choice is a value in America, because we believe in individual liberty of conscience. But, American families are broken and Americans have lost thie "sense" about value, when they don't seem to care about anything other than watching the next episode of "The Bacholor". Children are raised with little sense of self, because their parents are too busy to make room for baby. I don't value this attitude, because young people need guidance, so that they can make wise choices about thier lives. Parents and others in the community are needed to encourage such emotional and character development.
Discrimination means that making choices might mean separating onself from things that are not valued, as much. Prioritizing such values is a necessary "education" about oneself and goal setting.
In our culture, "discrimination' has gotten a "bad" or negative definition, because it has so often been associated with racial, or sexual inquality. Equality is an American ideal, so the politically correct definition of discrimination never gets investigated. It is swallowed without thinking about what it might mean.
I am glad that America allows for inviduals to discriminate about thier own values and purposes, otherwise, I would be discriminated against!!
Monday, February 21, 2011
Religious Identity
Religious identity is a coping mechanism. The reason I say this is because "God" is to over-intend, or cause "what is". This comforts those whose lives are in social, or poltical contexts that don't give them voice, or right to "self identify", as to "self identity". There is comfort in these cases in numbers, or, at least not being alone. ("God is with you..."). "God" is viewed as the "end all" solution to every problem or concern.
Besides being a coping mechanism, or giving a "reason to hope" beyond this world, there is the need to defend one's "Self", to make oneself "win" or appear "better than" another, whch is is the attempt to buttress an undeveloped "Ego", or "Self". This is done through various "works of service". These are seen or viewed by others in the religious community, as well as the "religious self", as "performances" that validate ones' existence. And such performances justify one's claims to "truth". Virtue is not about one's essential being, but one's "kind of being". It is as if, one has to "earn" or justify one's existance.
There is a difference between "essence of being" and "kind of being" And the differnece is in one's value judgements. When a community defines what is expected, or "ought to be", then one's performance is based on the "kind of individual" and whether that individual meets expectations. Standardizations are ways that groups define and stamp a person with "Recommended", or "Unrecommended". All groups must evaluate people based on their particular values, otherwise, the group dissolves its cohesiveness.
On the other hand, the "essence of being" is one's very innate nature, in gifting , interests and value. There is no "defined outside source, at least in a free society. One can become whatever one will. This virtue is not a value judgment about performance, but, Being itself. This view of innatedness, is an "essential foundation", as to the value of the human being, apart from definitions, and performance.
Religious identity is "caught up" with how to define oneself 'correctly', because such efforts are "life and death", heaven and hell, or truth or falsehood, as it pertains to "eternal things" And eternal things are more important and valuable than the real world. The religious don't enter into"what is of life", but seek to define life, before they enter it. And sometimes cease to live or enter life at all!! And many times the religious obstruct those that are trying to "enter life" and Be, as to their essestial natures, thinking that they protect and defend "the true faith". All the while, they are invading spaces that are not their to invade!
Besides being a coping mechanism, or giving a "reason to hope" beyond this world, there is the need to defend one's "Self", to make oneself "win" or appear "better than" another, whch is is the attempt to buttress an undeveloped "Ego", or "Self". This is done through various "works of service". These are seen or viewed by others in the religious community, as well as the "religious self", as "performances" that validate ones' existence. And such performances justify one's claims to "truth". Virtue is not about one's essential being, but one's "kind of being". It is as if, one has to "earn" or justify one's existance.
There is a difference between "essence of being" and "kind of being" And the differnece is in one's value judgements. When a community defines what is expected, or "ought to be", then one's performance is based on the "kind of individual" and whether that individual meets expectations. Standardizations are ways that groups define and stamp a person with "Recommended", or "Unrecommended". All groups must evaluate people based on their particular values, otherwise, the group dissolves its cohesiveness.
On the other hand, the "essence of being" is one's very innate nature, in gifting , interests and value. There is no "defined outside source, at least in a free society. One can become whatever one will. This virtue is not a value judgment about performance, but, Being itself. This view of innatedness, is an "essential foundation", as to the value of the human being, apart from definitions, and performance.
Religious identity is "caught up" with how to define oneself 'correctly', because such efforts are "life and death", heaven and hell, or truth or falsehood, as it pertains to "eternal things" And eternal things are more important and valuable than the real world. The religious don't enter into"what is of life", but seek to define life, before they enter it. And sometimes cease to live or enter life at all!! And many times the religious obstruct those that are trying to "enter life" and Be, as to their essestial natures, thinking that they protect and defend "the true faith". All the while, they are invading spaces that are not their to invade!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
