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.
Showing posts with label American politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American politics. Show all posts
Monday, April 25, 2011
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!
Monday, February 14, 2011
Anger About One's Own Naivete'
Today, a friend from far away called. She and I understand and accept one another because we "know" each other. This is "Human Nature" in relationship. One's way of viewing reality can be different but the ability to tolerate difference is really dependent on one's self development and where one personally chooses to draw their boundaries and what one ultimately thinks is valuable. I think that prejudice cannot be avoided for this very reason.
Today, I was expressing my journey and she picked up my anger and told me that if she didn't know me, she'd think I was angry at HER. She knows me better than that. I understood and confessed that I was really angry at myself. I had made many choices based on what I had understood to be a universal understanding, and it wasn't.
All political dialogue is based on terminology that must be investigated as to definition. Definitions define and reveal assumptions, ends, and ultimately whether values are on the "same page" or not.
Politics has a habit of using such rhetoric and not revealing the underlying assumptions of value. Those that are not educated in critically thinking through whether what is said, is equatable to what is understood. might just be duped into believing that we "all" agree! when we really don't!
I am angry, but I will eventually "get over it", because I am changing my allegiances, and understandings. I am pursuing and investigating. I am just glad to have friends that value me apart from what I believe or don't believe, or what I value as ultimate or not ultimate, because these are true friends, indeed....And true friends are one of life's greatest values, because they support you in your journey in life, no matter where it leads!
Today, I was expressing my journey and she picked up my anger and told me that if she didn't know me, she'd think I was angry at HER. She knows me better than that. I understood and confessed that I was really angry at myself. I had made many choices based on what I had understood to be a universal understanding, and it wasn't.
All political dialogue is based on terminology that must be investigated as to definition. Definitions define and reveal assumptions, ends, and ultimately whether values are on the "same page" or not.
Politics has a habit of using such rhetoric and not revealing the underlying assumptions of value. Those that are not educated in critically thinking through whether what is said, is equatable to what is understood. might just be duped into believing that we "all" agree! when we really don't!
I am angry, but I will eventually "get over it", because I am changing my allegiances, and understandings. I am pursuing and investigating. I am just glad to have friends that value me apart from what I believe or don't believe, or what I value as ultimate or not ultimate, because these are true friends, indeed....And true friends are one of life's greatest values, because they support you in your journey in life, no matter where it leads!
Sunday, February 13, 2011
America Needs Statesmanship!
America is in need of Statesmanship in today's climate of volitility!
Statesmanship is the ability to stand on principle, be honest and concerned for the future good of the nation and know how to paint a vision for that future with concern for the opposition's interests. A statesman is able to inspire hope, purpose and vision for the nation and its immediate needs. We have seen too few statesman these days!
Here are some quotes about statesmanship from a Founder, presidents, writers, an economist, and a doctor.
"It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.
Posted in James Madison
Tagged enlightened, Federalist No. 10, helm, James Madison, statesmenAuthor: James Madison
Context: Federalist No. 10
Year: 1787
“One man's opportunism is another man's statesmanship”
Milton Friedman quotes (American Economist, b.1912)
“Compromise makes a good umbrella, but a poor roof; it is temporary expedient, often wise in party politics, almost sure to be unwise in statesmanship.”
James Russell Lowell quotes (American Poet, Critic, Essayist, Editor and Diplomat, 1819-1891)
"Science will never be able to reduce the value of a sunset to arithmetic. Nor can it reduce friendship or statesmanship to a formula.”
Dr. Louis Orr quotes
“The essence of statesmanship is not a rigid adherence to the past, but a prudent and probing concern for the future.”
Hubert H. Humphrey quotes
"In statesmanship get the formalities right, never mind about the moralities.”
Mark Twain quotes
"Honest statesmanship is the wise employment of individual manners for the public good”
Abraham Lincoln quotes
Statesmanship is the ability to stand on principle, be honest and concerned for the future good of the nation and know how to paint a vision for that future with concern for the opposition's interests. A statesman is able to inspire hope, purpose and vision for the nation and its immediate needs. We have seen too few statesman these days!
Here are some quotes about statesmanship from a Founder, presidents, writers, an economist, and a doctor.
"It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.
Posted in James Madison
Tagged enlightened, Federalist No. 10, helm, James Madison, statesmenAuthor: James Madison
Context: Federalist No. 10
Year: 1787
“One man's opportunism is another man's statesmanship”
Milton Friedman quotes (American Economist, b.1912)
“Compromise makes a good umbrella, but a poor roof; it is temporary expedient, often wise in party politics, almost sure to be unwise in statesmanship.”
James Russell Lowell quotes (American Poet, Critic, Essayist, Editor and Diplomat, 1819-1891)
"Science will never be able to reduce the value of a sunset to arithmetic. Nor can it reduce friendship or statesmanship to a formula.”
Dr. Louis Orr quotes
“The essence of statesmanship is not a rigid adherence to the past, but a prudent and probing concern for the future.”
Hubert H. Humphrey quotes
"In statesmanship get the formalities right, never mind about the moralities.”
Mark Twain quotes
"Honest statesmanship is the wise employment of individual manners for the public good”
Abraham Lincoln quotes
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Separation of Church and State and Individual Conscience
The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”
James Madison quote
"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion." 1797 the treaty of Tripoli, signed by President Washington, and approved by the Senate of the United States
"Almighty God hath created the mind free; all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments of burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in His almighty power to do." Thomas Jefferson, Acts for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia, 1785.
"I am tolerant of all creeds. Yet if any sect suffered itself to be used for political objects I would meet it by political opposition. In my view church and state should be separate, not only in form, but fact. Religion and politics should not be mingled." Millard Fillmore (1809-1865) 13th U.S. President (Millard Fillmore, address during the 1856 presidential election; from Albert Menendez and Edd Doerr, eds., Great Quotations on Religious Freedom, Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2002, p. 70.)
"There is not a precept in the New Testament to compel, by civil law, any man who is not a Christian to pay any regard to the Lord's day, more than to any other day, and is without the authority of the christian religion. The gospel commands no duty which can be performed without faith in God. `Whatsoever is not of faith is sin' but to compel men destitute of faith to observe any Christian institution, such as the Lord's day, is commanding a duty to be performed without faith in God. Therefore, to command unbelievers, or natural men, to observe in any sense the Lord's day, is antievangelical, or contrary to the gospel." Alexander Campbell, Founder of Disciples of Christ Church Memoirs, Vol 1, pg 528.
"When religion is good, it will take care of itself. When it is not able to take care of itself, and God does not see fit to take care of it, so that it has to appeal to the civil power for support, it is evidence to my mind that its cause is a bad one." Benjamin Franklin, Statesman, Inventor, Author, Letter to Dr. Price.
"To discriminate against a thoroughly upright citizen because he belongs to some particular church, or because, like Abraham Lincoln, he has not avowed his allegiance to any church, is an outrage against the liberty of conscience, which is one of the foundations of American life." - Roosevelt's letter on religious liberty.
James Madison quote
"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion." 1797 the treaty of Tripoli, signed by President Washington, and approved by the Senate of the United States
"Almighty God hath created the mind free; all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments of burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in His almighty power to do." Thomas Jefferson, Acts for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia, 1785.
"I am tolerant of all creeds. Yet if any sect suffered itself to be used for political objects I would meet it by political opposition. In my view church and state should be separate, not only in form, but fact. Religion and politics should not be mingled." Millard Fillmore (1809-1865) 13th U.S. President (Millard Fillmore, address during the 1856 presidential election; from Albert Menendez and Edd Doerr, eds., Great Quotations on Religious Freedom, Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2002, p. 70.)
"There is not a precept in the New Testament to compel, by civil law, any man who is not a Christian to pay any regard to the Lord's day, more than to any other day, and is without the authority of the christian religion. The gospel commands no duty which can be performed without faith in God. `Whatsoever is not of faith is sin' but to compel men destitute of faith to observe any Christian institution, such as the Lord's day, is commanding a duty to be performed without faith in God. Therefore, to command unbelievers, or natural men, to observe in any sense the Lord's day, is antievangelical, or contrary to the gospel." Alexander Campbell, Founder of Disciples of Christ Church Memoirs, Vol 1, pg 528.
"When religion is good, it will take care of itself. When it is not able to take care of itself, and God does not see fit to take care of it, so that it has to appeal to the civil power for support, it is evidence to my mind that its cause is a bad one." Benjamin Franklin, Statesman, Inventor, Author, Letter to Dr. Price.
"To discriminate against a thoroughly upright citizen because he belongs to some particular church, or because, like Abraham Lincoln, he has not avowed his allegiance to any church, is an outrage against the liberty of conscience, which is one of the foundations of American life." - Roosevelt's letter on religious liberty.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Eternal LIFE OR a "Socialized Theology"? and Political Realities
Christians were a Jewish sect. These did not have political power, as they were from marginal professions, such as fishermen and prostitutes. The Jews weren't all in agreement as to "eternal life" or the resurrection.
Could it be that the political reality of life, as to political power was what drove their "theologizing"? I believe so.
The Sadducees did not believe in eternal life or the resurrection, but the Pharisees did. Could it be that the Sadducees who were the more "empowered class", as to money and political power didn't need the "promise" of eternal life, because they had more choices as to their life? I believe this is key to how we "psychologically frame" reality.
Christians and the institution of the Church has used Jesus life as their example of Chrsitian faith. Jesus condemned the "white-washed tombs" of the Pharisees because they weren't living their life like he was, as a humanitarian. But, "Christian" was only a term that was useful after the assembling of "like-minded" individuals, a society. It was a way for these to find a "Place of Belonging". They didn't have that choice in the political realities in Rome.
Fortunately, for Americans, our nation values the right of conscience as to choice. This is what supports our diverse climate as to values in life. But, unfortunately, "Christians" don't know their roots, and why the developed theology had "power" over Chruch doctrine. It was a way to make a "better life" without the practical realities of messy politics.
Could it be that the political reality of life, as to political power was what drove their "theologizing"? I believe so.
The Sadducees did not believe in eternal life or the resurrection, but the Pharisees did. Could it be that the Sadducees who were the more "empowered class", as to money and political power didn't need the "promise" of eternal life, because they had more choices as to their life? I believe this is key to how we "psychologically frame" reality.
Christians and the institution of the Church has used Jesus life as their example of Chrsitian faith. Jesus condemned the "white-washed tombs" of the Pharisees because they weren't living their life like he was, as a humanitarian. But, "Christian" was only a term that was useful after the assembling of "like-minded" individuals, a society. It was a way for these to find a "Place of Belonging". They didn't have that choice in the political realities in Rome.
Fortunately, for Americans, our nation values the right of conscience as to choice. This is what supports our diverse climate as to values in life. But, unfortunately, "Christians" don't know their roots, and why the developed theology had "power" over Chruch doctrine. It was a way to make a "better life" without the practical realities of messy politics.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Walls Fall Down or Should They?
Walls define and determine differences and distinctions. These are boundaries that help identify things of importance and value. This is what the Church has done through the ages in separating the sacred and the secular. Yesterday's post was about how faith and the political have been defined and understood, as 'the real". I have problems with all of them and these are the reasons, but then, faith is not about reasons, it is about vision and focus.
The Church has defined what one should believe, but can we believe in virgins that give birth? Can we believe that men are totally depraved, meaning there is nothing redeemable about them? Can we believe that we all came from one couple? And what about the discrepecies in regards to the text itself ? Belief become unbelievable in today's scientific paradigm.
Then there are those that believe that one's faith is interpreted by "bearing the cross". These follow in Jesus' steps as the "Christ of faith". But, how is one to identify with a person that lived long ago, without giving up one's own identity? Don't adults have a well-formed identity, as to their personal values and goals?
There are others that want to bring peace and good-will on earth by investigating where the history and the myth intersect and work to dissolve differences between those that are marginlized. These could be those in human need (economic inequality) and/or those that are at political odds (political peace). But, how is one to believe in the free market and the Protestant work ethic if one also adheres to economic equality? And how is peace to come with so many differences that it has been impossible to rectify in the past? Are we at a place where those that have been at political odds can relate differently, or will there always be ideological differences in the world? I believe that ideology drives everything an individual/society holds as a value, and because of these irreconciable differences, then, we will be holding to naivete' to believe that peace will ever come world-wide and still uphold liberty of conscience.
So, where is the sacred and secular today? It is dead, except in segments of sectarian religious traditions. Life can be embraced as a gift of the "gods" or "God", or it can be embraced as a value itself.
Liberty, though, is not a value that is granted by nature, but must be nurtured and valued above all. Political liberty is hard won with shed blood and is not to be taken for granted. Leaders are to values those under them, so that justice will be forthcoming in equal consideration. The world is "at odds" and the walls or the defining elements cannot fall down without a disregard and disrespect for our nation's defining values of liberty itself..
The Church has defined what one should believe, but can we believe in virgins that give birth? Can we believe that men are totally depraved, meaning there is nothing redeemable about them? Can we believe that we all came from one couple? And what about the discrepecies in regards to the text itself ? Belief become unbelievable in today's scientific paradigm.
Then there are those that believe that one's faith is interpreted by "bearing the cross". These follow in Jesus' steps as the "Christ of faith". But, how is one to identify with a person that lived long ago, without giving up one's own identity? Don't adults have a well-formed identity, as to their personal values and goals?
There are others that want to bring peace and good-will on earth by investigating where the history and the myth intersect and work to dissolve differences between those that are marginlized. These could be those in human need (economic inequality) and/or those that are at political odds (political peace). But, how is one to believe in the free market and the Protestant work ethic if one also adheres to economic equality? And how is peace to come with so many differences that it has been impossible to rectify in the past? Are we at a place where those that have been at political odds can relate differently, or will there always be ideological differences in the world? I believe that ideology drives everything an individual/society holds as a value, and because of these irreconciable differences, then, we will be holding to naivete' to believe that peace will ever come world-wide and still uphold liberty of conscience.
So, where is the sacred and secular today? It is dead, except in segments of sectarian religious traditions. Life can be embraced as a gift of the "gods" or "God", or it can be embraced as a value itself.
Liberty, though, is not a value that is granted by nature, but must be nurtured and valued above all. Political liberty is hard won with shed blood and is not to be taken for granted. Leaders are to values those under them, so that justice will be forthcoming in equal consideration. The world is "at odds" and the walls or the defining elements cannot fall down without a disregard and disrespect for our nation's defining values of liberty itself..
Thursday, November 4, 2010
The Question of Faith and the Political
Faith has been the focus of our recent elections. Those who believed that our country values religious liberty are those that understood themselves as the faithful in protesting a "government take-over". But, how faith and politics interacts is a sticky situation.
Many have sought to define faith based soley on scripture. Their is a fundamentalist view of life and knowledge that is stringently defined by "holy scripture". The academic disciplines are suspect in this view.
Others have understood their faith based on the institution of the Church. And the Church has created a rationalization of faith claims which becomes doctrine. Those that do not adhere to these definitions are ex-communicated.
Still others have sought to use their reason to defend faith by theology. But, theology is still the Church's defense or rationale to believe without "grounding".
Some have sought to "ground" and live out their faith by a "logos' understanding. These have brought about an idealization of faith (Christ of faith) through Jesus, as a life example. These are piestic/behavioral oriented believers.
Those that have given up on definitions and are prone to a negative theology, where God ceases to be defined, because he is beyond definition, are pluralists. These are universalists in their understanding of faith. And they attempt to unify faith along the lines of human need.
Those that want to understand faith in regards to a particular tradition study the historical, political, and social structuring of such a faith. These are apt to be useful to political goals for peace.
Because I have doubts about the practicality of ideals when it comes to faith claims, I am in "limbo" and will not commit. Political goals and purposes seem to be the most realistic value to and for me. Therefore, our country's value of individuality/diversity and liberty are important values to me. These can only be protected if those in power understand that we are all created equal, without imposing thier ideological understanding of the way the world works or how the individual "should be" in the world.
I am afraid that religion has been useful to further political ends without considering that indivdual liberties will be undermined by such social engineering. And our American ideals of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" will be a distant memory unless we defend such liberty, as the most important value for American identity.
Many have sought to define faith based soley on scripture. Their is a fundamentalist view of life and knowledge that is stringently defined by "holy scripture". The academic disciplines are suspect in this view.
Others have understood their faith based on the institution of the Church. And the Church has created a rationalization of faith claims which becomes doctrine. Those that do not adhere to these definitions are ex-communicated.
Still others have sought to use their reason to defend faith by theology. But, theology is still the Church's defense or rationale to believe without "grounding".
Some have sought to "ground" and live out their faith by a "logos' understanding. These have brought about an idealization of faith (Christ of faith) through Jesus, as a life example. These are piestic/behavioral oriented believers.
Those that have given up on definitions and are prone to a negative theology, where God ceases to be defined, because he is beyond definition, are pluralists. These are universalists in their understanding of faith. And they attempt to unify faith along the lines of human need.
Those that want to understand faith in regards to a particular tradition study the historical, political, and social structuring of such a faith. These are apt to be useful to political goals for peace.
Because I have doubts about the practicality of ideals when it comes to faith claims, I am in "limbo" and will not commit. Political goals and purposes seem to be the most realistic value to and for me. Therefore, our country's value of individuality/diversity and liberty are important values to me. These can only be protected if those in power understand that we are all created equal, without imposing thier ideological understanding of the way the world works or how the individual "should be" in the world.
I am afraid that religion has been useful to further political ends without considering that indivdual liberties will be undermined by such social engineering. And our American ideals of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" will be a distant memory unless we defend such liberty, as the most important value for American identity.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Absolutely Amazing!
It was just reported that Biden said that the recovery didn't work BECAUSE we didn't SPEND ENOUGH!!! Does he believe this because he is out of touch with reality and with real people?
Politicians get to spend our money. These are entrusted servants, not entitled Kings. But, I think when one is conditioned by long terms in office to spend what is "budgeted", otherwise, there is less money to spend the next year, then one can "imagine" how this type of living and thinking can lead to a disconnect with where the money comes from and with the responsibility of the government to live frugally, like the rest of us.
This statement is amazing, too, because it is totally out of touch with what the population, as a whole is saying! Independents, and Republicans alike are calling for a "cut-back" in spending. But, while the government tells us to sacrifice, and to learn to do with less, they are being emboldened to further their borders in our private lives and personal pocketbooks!
Amazing! Absolutely Amazing!
Politicians get to spend our money. These are entrusted servants, not entitled Kings. But, I think when one is conditioned by long terms in office to spend what is "budgeted", otherwise, there is less money to spend the next year, then one can "imagine" how this type of living and thinking can lead to a disconnect with where the money comes from and with the responsibility of the government to live frugally, like the rest of us.
This statement is amazing, too, because it is totally out of touch with what the population, as a whole is saying! Independents, and Republicans alike are calling for a "cut-back" in spending. But, while the government tells us to sacrifice, and to learn to do with less, they are being emboldened to further their borders in our private lives and personal pocketbooks!
Amazing! Absolutely Amazing!
Monday, September 13, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Neither Church or State
I believe that neither Church or State should have authority, or pre-eminence over the individual and his life choices.
Individuals need to have the liberty to find their own way in the world, and how they "fit". But, because the individual is not alone in the world, the State is necessary. Government should seek to order society so that the individual can have liberty to define his own life. Government creates the laws to uphold the rights of individual liberty, so that justice can be for "all". A just society can be no less.
Liberty must be the foremost value is one values a free society, where individuals are valued in their own right. Otherwise, some other value is more important, such as God or society, itself. This is when authoritarianism whether the State, or Spiritual "Elders" are Rulers and dictators over the individual conscience. These kinds of governments demand obedience of individual consciences to their brand or form of "virtue", whether it be for the poor, the destitute, or dis-enfranchised. And these social "concerns" are useful for the empowered class to "use" other individuals in sevitude to their 'agenda'.
All individuals will not find that their agenda will be implemented, but laws should protect the rights of others, so that Rulers will not become oppressors, in the name of their agenda. We are, after all, a Representative Republic.
Individuals need to have the liberty to find their own way in the world, and how they "fit". But, because the individual is not alone in the world, the State is necessary. Government should seek to order society so that the individual can have liberty to define his own life. Government creates the laws to uphold the rights of individual liberty, so that justice can be for "all". A just society can be no less.
Liberty must be the foremost value is one values a free society, where individuals are valued in their own right. Otherwise, some other value is more important, such as God or society, itself. This is when authoritarianism whether the State, or Spiritual "Elders" are Rulers and dictators over the individual conscience. These kinds of governments demand obedience of individual consciences to their brand or form of "virtue", whether it be for the poor, the destitute, or dis-enfranchised. And these social "concerns" are useful for the empowered class to "use" other individuals in sevitude to their 'agenda'.
All individuals will not find that their agenda will be implemented, but laws should protect the rights of others, so that Rulers will not become oppressors, in the name of their agenda. We are, after all, a Representative Republic.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Immigration Policy, As a Principle of Humaness
The current crisis in our immigration policy has been exasperated by Arizona's "new law". Or is Arizona creating "new law"? Isn't Arizona just upholding our national boundaries that protect and define its citizenry? And what of the immigrants that have come to her for "refuge"? What about America, as a 'humane culture and society? Where do boundaries begin and end and where should they?
Arizona has argued that their law on protecting Americans from infilteration of illegals is one that is based on Constitutionality and compliments the federal standards. If the judge determines that Arizona is correct, many States will probably follow Arizona's lead.
The other side argues that immigration policy is solely the responsibility of the federal government, as the federal government is the "United States", therefore, a State does not have the right to supercede federal right.
Many such arguments have been made in the past, such as with the Civil War and the slavery issue. Do States have rights of protecting their economic viability over and above a "universalized and standardized" way of being in the world? Should the Southern States have been allowed to give the right of choice to their slaves with the possibility that the slaves would continue in their service to their masters? Or is slavery wrong in a universal sense and shouldn't be allowed, because of the universiality of the human? I think there is a distinction between slavery as forbidden and the treatment of slaves as humane or inhumane. The issue is whether the slave is voluntarily cooperative and willing and whether the "master" is humane in his treatment of his slave. Everyone cannot be the 'master"....but the slave should have a right to liberty, if he chooses. (Master= leader and slave=employee).
The immigration problem is a situation that is similar. Illegal immigrants means that there is a standard whereby we maintain public order, by establishing these laws to protect from those that would not benefit our society. In fact, illegals may be allowing the dissolution of our national security with terrorists. Such tolerance would be suicide, nationally.
I do believe that America is a humane nation, when it comes to our ideals. The suggestion that illegals could be given a chance to go "back home" without prosecution is a good one. Perhaps, these illegals would be given a certain amount of time for "grace'. Then, prosecution should be swift and strong.
We cannot ignore how politicians in the past have used the amnesty of illegals to pack the votes in at our polls and distort our "real voice" as a nation!
We cannot continue to tolerate the undermining of our borders. Otherwise, there is no reason to continue our identity as a nation-state. Our borders should define who is "in" and who is "out". And we should not feel guilty for such definition, because such definition demands respect. The humane choice is to continue our immigration standards, with naturalization. And it is obvious that because there are so many that want to be a part of our nation, that we must be doing something right!
Princple CAN be Humane!
Arizona has argued that their law on protecting Americans from infilteration of illegals is one that is based on Constitutionality and compliments the federal standards. If the judge determines that Arizona is correct, many States will probably follow Arizona's lead.
The other side argues that immigration policy is solely the responsibility of the federal government, as the federal government is the "United States", therefore, a State does not have the right to supercede federal right.
Many such arguments have been made in the past, such as with the Civil War and the slavery issue. Do States have rights of protecting their economic viability over and above a "universalized and standardized" way of being in the world? Should the Southern States have been allowed to give the right of choice to their slaves with the possibility that the slaves would continue in their service to their masters? Or is slavery wrong in a universal sense and shouldn't be allowed, because of the universiality of the human? I think there is a distinction between slavery as forbidden and the treatment of slaves as humane or inhumane. The issue is whether the slave is voluntarily cooperative and willing and whether the "master" is humane in his treatment of his slave. Everyone cannot be the 'master"....but the slave should have a right to liberty, if he chooses. (Master= leader and slave=employee).
The immigration problem is a situation that is similar. Illegal immigrants means that there is a standard whereby we maintain public order, by establishing these laws to protect from those that would not benefit our society. In fact, illegals may be allowing the dissolution of our national security with terrorists. Such tolerance would be suicide, nationally.
I do believe that America is a humane nation, when it comes to our ideals. The suggestion that illegals could be given a chance to go "back home" without prosecution is a good one. Perhaps, these illegals would be given a certain amount of time for "grace'. Then, prosecution should be swift and strong.
We cannot ignore how politicians in the past have used the amnesty of illegals to pack the votes in at our polls and distort our "real voice" as a nation!
We cannot continue to tolerate the undermining of our borders. Otherwise, there is no reason to continue our identity as a nation-state. Our borders should define who is "in" and who is "out". And we should not feel guilty for such definition, because such definition demands respect. The humane choice is to continue our immigration standards, with naturalization. And it is obvious that because there are so many that want to be a part of our nation, that we must be doing something right!
Princple CAN be Humane!
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
An "Enlightenment" to One's Own Bias
Today, I realized that whenever one has an agenda, there is biased opinion. Things that are read, or heard are "heard" with that "frame" in mind. This "frame", in turn, predisposes one to connect and make associations, that are not in what is read or heard. This the the major problem of reporting objectively. We all have bias, don't we?
Why would I assume that everyone has bias? Would it be that humans are context bound and are dependent beings on what they know, and what effect that has had on them? The totality of an experience, in sense and formal education, is the important thing to recognize. One person's highlight, is another's bland boredom. Why would this be? Expectations and information.
Our expectations do predispose us and bias us toward how we experience and understand. Whenever we expect "ideals" to be realized, most usually, we are disappointed, at least, if we expect these disconnected with the "real world" of less than ideal contexts and people.
Our expectations may disappoint, but not as sorely as when we have knowledge. Knowledge equips us for the real world, and not an ideal one. The pragmatist knows and understands the limitations of life and is prepared to embrace what comes into one's experience.
Today, while attempting to interact on a blog, I was told that I had run away with "the store", so to speak. By the time I had ended my "interaction", there was little connection to what had been shared. Why was this so? I had an agenda.
Because of recent politics, I have grave concern over our nation and its future. Therefore, I sought to understand America's origins, its Founders, and understand how politicians and the populace were understanding the issues and contexts they were in. This set me on a course for over the last couple of years, that has fascinated me. My worldview was challenged and changed. I will never be the same. But, in the mean-time, until I "settle", then I will probably "read" into the things I am reading, gleaning what I "need" to fill in the gaps of my understanding....This presupposition limits my critical ability to engage the issues before me. But, then, again, I want independence of thought. I do not desire to be spoon-fed. But, I do desire to be educated, by the educated.
In conclusion, we must undestand whenever we have agendas or things that are being reconciled in our lives and thinking. For if we are not careful, we will misunderstand and miscommunicate. And others will be baffled over how we have come to our conclusions. So, be aware of where you are, before you speak and think before you write. Otherwise, people will not be any better off, than before you opened your mouth or picked up your pen.
Why would I assume that everyone has bias? Would it be that humans are context bound and are dependent beings on what they know, and what effect that has had on them? The totality of an experience, in sense and formal education, is the important thing to recognize. One person's highlight, is another's bland boredom. Why would this be? Expectations and information.
Our expectations do predispose us and bias us toward how we experience and understand. Whenever we expect "ideals" to be realized, most usually, we are disappointed, at least, if we expect these disconnected with the "real world" of less than ideal contexts and people.
Our expectations may disappoint, but not as sorely as when we have knowledge. Knowledge equips us for the real world, and not an ideal one. The pragmatist knows and understands the limitations of life and is prepared to embrace what comes into one's experience.
Today, while attempting to interact on a blog, I was told that I had run away with "the store", so to speak. By the time I had ended my "interaction", there was little connection to what had been shared. Why was this so? I had an agenda.
Because of recent politics, I have grave concern over our nation and its future. Therefore, I sought to understand America's origins, its Founders, and understand how politicians and the populace were understanding the issues and contexts they were in. This set me on a course for over the last couple of years, that has fascinated me. My worldview was challenged and changed. I will never be the same. But, in the mean-time, until I "settle", then I will probably "read" into the things I am reading, gleaning what I "need" to fill in the gaps of my understanding....This presupposition limits my critical ability to engage the issues before me. But, then, again, I want independence of thought. I do not desire to be spoon-fed. But, I do desire to be educated, by the educated.
In conclusion, we must undestand whenever we have agendas or things that are being reconciled in our lives and thinking. For if we are not careful, we will misunderstand and miscommunicate. And others will be baffled over how we have come to our conclusions. So, be aware of where you are, before you speak and think before you write. Otherwise, people will not be any better off, than before you opened your mouth or picked up your pen.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Tea Parties and Revolution
The "Tea Parties" are representative of our American system. We believe in our freedom to dissent, to petition our government, and to express our opinion. But, more so, we also want accountability from our represetatives.
Last night, my husband and I watched 4 hours of Russian history. I couldn't help but think that the 'peasants' who came to petition their Tzar, peacefully, only to have shots fired at them were a little like the 'tea parties". How so?
The Russian people found themselves oppressed and were wanting answers from their government. These were not using violent means, but met violence. Such is the case with our news media and how they are portraying the average citizen in our society. The "tea parties" want a peaceful way to express their anger and anxiety over the change that seems forced upon us. We are given no reasons why this is such an imperative, other than a "moral one". Is it not just as immoral to put our country's future viability at risk?
Last night, my husband and I watched 4 hours of Russian history. I couldn't help but think that the 'peasants' who came to petition their Tzar, peacefully, only to have shots fired at them were a little like the 'tea parties". How so?
The Russian people found themselves oppressed and were wanting answers from their government. These were not using violent means, but met violence. Such is the case with our news media and how they are portraying the average citizen in our society. The "tea parties" want a peaceful way to express their anger and anxiety over the change that seems forced upon us. We are given no reasons why this is such an imperative, other than a "moral one". Is it not just as immoral to put our country's future viability at risk?
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Politicizing the Census
The Democrats are on the war path this morning. The census is being discussed and a question came in about the wisdom of giving out this information to the government. The discussion then turned into an opportunity for politics. The Republicans were demonized by saying that the Republicans had politicized the census by sending out questionaires for fund-raising, insinuating that Republicans were being deceptive. These were not the overt words of the discussion, but it was the insinuation. Were the Democratically leaning panel not politicizing the discussion?
The census is done because the Founders believed that it would be the best way for the publics' interest to be represented, as it determines where the boundaries are that will determine a certain district.
Giving the Republicans the benefit of the doubt, could the Republcans be sincerely interested in what the American people want? After being "dismissed" and not being allowed to be players in the major decisions facing our nation, could they have learned that it is important that we all have a voice? Certainly, the tea parties and the town hall meetings over the summer gave these politicians a clear picture of how the American people feel about being left out of the political process by the dismissal of their voice!
I find that today so much is politicized that the American people cannot discern what or whom to believe. Has this always been so, and I am only waking up to the real world of politics? Perhaps so, but this morning's presentation by the Democrats made me more aware of how a "fact" can be interpreted.
The census is done because the Founders believed that it would be the best way for the publics' interest to be represented, as it determines where the boundaries are that will determine a certain district.
Giving the Republicans the benefit of the doubt, could the Republcans be sincerely interested in what the American people want? After being "dismissed" and not being allowed to be players in the major decisions facing our nation, could they have learned that it is important that we all have a voice? Certainly, the tea parties and the town hall meetings over the summer gave these politicians a clear picture of how the American people feel about being left out of the political process by the dismissal of their voice!
I find that today so much is politicized that the American people cannot discern what or whom to believe. Has this always been so, and I am only waking up to the real world of politics? Perhaps so, but this morning's presentation by the Democrats made me more aware of how a "fact" can be interpreted.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Anarchism
Anarchists do not believe in government's power or right, because they believe that the people have the right to liberty, irregardless of government's needs. Government is not an established authority, but a "consented authority".
I have been thinking about this, as another blog had a survey on which type of government would be the best. But, they did not include a Constitutional Republic! And I wondered why....
I answered a Democratic Capitalist, because I don't adhere to Socialism, or Dictatorship. And as I believe that our government by it very nature protects individual civil liberties, I didn't go for "Anarchism". But, on further reflection, isn't this what the "tea parties" are about? So, maybe I am an anarchists.
The "tea parties" are tired of government subverting the right of the people, because our government was founded on the premise of be a government "by the people and for the people", as well as being a government given "power by the people, themselves"!!! So, maybe under certain circumstance, I am for anarchism....
Didn't our Founders subvert the previous form of government, a monarchy...and wasn't the Civil War about the rights of those who weren't represented in our "Representative Republic"?
Although there has been debate about State rights, versus Federal rights, or Localism versus internationalism....how can we deny that we are already bound to a globalist economy? Trade has mandated that this is so. But, we are not prepared for the diveristy in which government's do trade, are we? And how do we maintain the individual's free choice, when others do not have those same values?
A lot has to be reflected upon before we get ourselves into further danger. We have let down our borders with no consideration of what this must or may mean to American's values of life and liberty...
I guess I am learning that there is no "ideal" world, but there are "ideals". And "ideals' lead to the wars we have because "ideals' determine what kind of political system one believes in. "Ideals" speak to man's hopes, dreams, and possibilities. And Americans are big on thier ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, for the person, the individual....in his or her own right.
I have been thinking about this, as another blog had a survey on which type of government would be the best. But, they did not include a Constitutional Republic! And I wondered why....
I answered a Democratic Capitalist, because I don't adhere to Socialism, or Dictatorship. And as I believe that our government by it very nature protects individual civil liberties, I didn't go for "Anarchism". But, on further reflection, isn't this what the "tea parties" are about? So, maybe I am an anarchists.
The "tea parties" are tired of government subverting the right of the people, because our government was founded on the premise of be a government "by the people and for the people", as well as being a government given "power by the people, themselves"!!! So, maybe under certain circumstance, I am for anarchism....
Didn't our Founders subvert the previous form of government, a monarchy...and wasn't the Civil War about the rights of those who weren't represented in our "Representative Republic"?
Although there has been debate about State rights, versus Federal rights, or Localism versus internationalism....how can we deny that we are already bound to a globalist economy? Trade has mandated that this is so. But, we are not prepared for the diveristy in which government's do trade, are we? And how do we maintain the individual's free choice, when others do not have those same values?
A lot has to be reflected upon before we get ourselves into further danger. We have let down our borders with no consideration of what this must or may mean to American's values of life and liberty...
I guess I am learning that there is no "ideal" world, but there are "ideals". And "ideals' lead to the wars we have because "ideals' determine what kind of political system one believes in. "Ideals" speak to man's hopes, dreams, and possibilities. And Americans are big on thier ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, for the person, the individual....in his or her own right.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Church And State, Who Wins?
Church and State has been of interest to me the past couple of years. I suppose it is because I am personally addressing some questions about what I think and why.
Is the Church a culture? then the Church has got to take a position about such things as dress, "manners", and social issues.
Is the Church a theological position? then the Church has to defend the "faith".
Is the Church a human institution made of many and various people that have differences of opinion where it concerns social and theological issues? then the Church is universal.
Personally, I think that government is more important than the Church. Why? Because, if one believes that the world has some kind of "order", as our Founders believed, then there are better or worse ways to "do" things. Government can form society, but the Founders were wise enough to know that individuals are what make the society what it is. They believed that all humans were equal, so government was to be for and by the people. Government, then, is only a reflection of the people who make up the society. And when people do not care about their society and its people, their government suffers. So, the question is not whether the Church is of value or importance, but what kind of people make up a particular society.
How is the Church show "care" about society? Should the Church be doing works of activism? Or should the Church leave activism to individual conscience? A lot will depend on the individual's particular persuasion about their religious tradition.
I think that it is wise to not further the gap between the sacred and secular. It breeds an "us/them" mentality. And it leads itself to pious and arrogant assertions, in the "name of God". And arrogant assertions only breed cultural division and a "war" mentality. Christians become "crusaders" for causes that are complex issues that should be left to competency.
I would rather not label myself as "Christian", "non-Christian", "believer" or "un-believer". Identification is held as a responsible "being", not in my political or social affliations. And the Church is only one social/political affliation.
What is "true" is true in all aspects of life, there is no 'special revelation or special people". And humans gain knowledge and wisdom by searching for it, whether they label themselves "Christian" or not.
Humans have needs which have irrelavancy to ideological or religious contexts, or commitments. Therefore, is the Church/religion even relevant in the conversation?
Without political freedom, which must be fought for, literally and metaphorically, humans suffer under oppression. And oppression is a diseased and disordered government, who prey upon it ignorant and uncaring populace. No one "wins" when the State OR Church oppresses individuals and their "free choice" in a "free society".
Is the Church a culture? then the Church has got to take a position about such things as dress, "manners", and social issues.
Is the Church a theological position? then the Church has to defend the "faith".
Is the Church a human institution made of many and various people that have differences of opinion where it concerns social and theological issues? then the Church is universal.
Personally, I think that government is more important than the Church. Why? Because, if one believes that the world has some kind of "order", as our Founders believed, then there are better or worse ways to "do" things. Government can form society, but the Founders were wise enough to know that individuals are what make the society what it is. They believed that all humans were equal, so government was to be for and by the people. Government, then, is only a reflection of the people who make up the society. And when people do not care about their society and its people, their government suffers. So, the question is not whether the Church is of value or importance, but what kind of people make up a particular society.
How is the Church show "care" about society? Should the Church be doing works of activism? Or should the Church leave activism to individual conscience? A lot will depend on the individual's particular persuasion about their religious tradition.
I think that it is wise to not further the gap between the sacred and secular. It breeds an "us/them" mentality. And it leads itself to pious and arrogant assertions, in the "name of God". And arrogant assertions only breed cultural division and a "war" mentality. Christians become "crusaders" for causes that are complex issues that should be left to competency.
I would rather not label myself as "Christian", "non-Christian", "believer" or "un-believer". Identification is held as a responsible "being", not in my political or social affliations. And the Church is only one social/political affliation.
What is "true" is true in all aspects of life, there is no 'special revelation or special people". And humans gain knowledge and wisdom by searching for it, whether they label themselves "Christian" or not.
Humans have needs which have irrelavancy to ideological or religious contexts, or commitments. Therefore, is the Church/religion even relevant in the conversation?
Without political freedom, which must be fought for, literally and metaphorically, humans suffer under oppression. And oppression is a diseased and disordered government, who prey upon it ignorant and uncaring populace. No one "wins" when the State OR Church oppresses individuals and their "free choice" in a "free society".
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Reconcilliation????
This morning it seems that the healthcare reform is not dead, in spite of a statement by Nancy Pelosi that it was. Politicians have a very different definition of reconcilliation.
Think about what has happened this past year. Would you consider it reconcilliation if you were left out of the planning, as many times the Republicans were? It doesn't make sense in a Representative Republic. Don't they have a right to voice their opinion and represent their people?
I have read elsewhere that those that are in the minority can "play it both ways", taking credit for any victories or successful legislation and blame the majority if "it doesn't work out". Politicians play both sides of the game and that is why we so often see our political color change from election to election.
It sounded all too simple that the Democrats would give up on such a major focus of their strategic plan, so I am not surprised, just continually baffled over the continual disregard for the American people and their opinion.
Think about what has happened this past year. Would you consider it reconcilliation if you were left out of the planning, as many times the Republicans were? It doesn't make sense in a Representative Republic. Don't they have a right to voice their opinion and represent their people?
I have read elsewhere that those that are in the minority can "play it both ways", taking credit for any victories or successful legislation and blame the majority if "it doesn't work out". Politicians play both sides of the game and that is why we so often see our political color change from election to election.
It sounded all too simple that the Democrats would give up on such a major focus of their strategic plan, so I am not surprised, just continually baffled over the continual disregard for the American people and their opinion.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Politics and Rumor
Rumor seems to be the "rule of the game" concerning Brown's candidacy in MA. But, what else in new in politics?
It seems that a religious writer for a well-known newspaper revealed that Brown posed semi-nude. Since conservatives are the base of the Republican Party, is this a way of low-balling a candidate's character and marginalizing his political career?
It also seems that the story is more than rumor, as Brown did pose, it was stated, in Comopolitan in 1982! How many candidates would be left to run for public office if there was an investigation of all past mistakes, bad choices, or raw deals? Most humans cannot brag about a pristine past, free of sordid details, but humans thrive on such knowledge.
Just remember that there have been actual hired professional investigators digging up "messes" of the past life of other candidates or competitors. Human nature does not change when it comes to politics. And if there has never been a "past", I wonder how many can remain free from "tarnish" after running for political office. Humans have marvelous ways of rationalizing their choices.
So, how do you think character should be judged? Should the past play into how one views a person and their ability to run for public office? Is the particular type of past indiscretaion, sin, or mistake important? Is the candidate's readiness dependent on how many enemies the candidate has? Or how he can be portrayed by the media? Or are his religious views relavant? And do these views have direct relationship to policy, or to religious doctrine?
What constitutes a "justified" candidate, one that is capable of doing a job and doing it well? And what factors determine that ability? Is experience important?
I would love to understand how the public views political candidates and their viability politically.
It seems that a religious writer for a well-known newspaper revealed that Brown posed semi-nude. Since conservatives are the base of the Republican Party, is this a way of low-balling a candidate's character and marginalizing his political career?
It also seems that the story is more than rumor, as Brown did pose, it was stated, in Comopolitan in 1982! How many candidates would be left to run for public office if there was an investigation of all past mistakes, bad choices, or raw deals? Most humans cannot brag about a pristine past, free of sordid details, but humans thrive on such knowledge.
Just remember that there have been actual hired professional investigators digging up "messes" of the past life of other candidates or competitors. Human nature does not change when it comes to politics. And if there has never been a "past", I wonder how many can remain free from "tarnish" after running for political office. Humans have marvelous ways of rationalizing their choices.
So, how do you think character should be judged? Should the past play into how one views a person and their ability to run for public office? Is the particular type of past indiscretaion, sin, or mistake important? Is the candidate's readiness dependent on how many enemies the candidate has? Or how he can be portrayed by the media? Or are his religious views relavant? And do these views have direct relationship to policy, or to religious doctrine?
What constitutes a "justified" candidate, one that is capable of doing a job and doing it well? And what factors determine that ability? Is experience important?
I would love to understand how the public views political candidates and their viability politically.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
On Character....
Character is described by one's attitudes, as well as one's actions, as character reflects conviction and commitment. This is a simplistic view that doesn't take into account any dimension of psychological science. It is as if humans are two demensional beings, while the world is know to be multi-deminsional. It could be termed the "human" "flat-landers.
This is where I believe that Christians are amiss.
Character is not one definitive way of being in the world, otherwise, there would not be various commitments and convictions. One's values do not necessarily determine how one will behave within their value system. Free societies allow individual the liberty, in fact, protect the right of the individual , as this is the classical definition of liberalism.
Authoritarian structures were never meant to be sanctioned within our form of government, as coercion is not the terminology of liberty or justice. All of us are equal under law, as the law in no respector of persons. And Christians, as well as non-Christians, are "not above the law".
Today, we have those in places of power who take advantage of their power for their own purposes, while diminishing their responsibility and accountability to 'we, the people". This is the formula for depotism. And it was not what the Founder's intended when they sought to make a "more perfect union".
A person of character chooses his course of action based upon his highest ideals, or principles. This cannot be defined by religious texts, unless one wants to limit religious freedom and conscience.
Politics does not allow principle when needs are immanant. Politics is a pragmatic science. Is a senator to 'vote no" on legislation that will be the death knell to his particular state, while understanding that the needs in his state are not as immanant as another? Survival of the fittest defines appropriately the political realm. Politics demands attention and decisions to be made with compromise and negotiation, so that something can get accomplished. Politics is "dirty business". Those who hold high ideals will be sorely disappointed if they think that anyone can survive in a climate of partisanship and individual competition, where money and power speak.
Sometimes it is the 'little guy" who can maintain his character, without compromising his principle, because he doesn't have to represent many and diverse voices in our country. He is held up to be the "ideal in virtuous character". This is the traditional "position" of the Christian, the peasant class, where they submitted unto death for the sake of the principle of peace.
The principle of peace should never further tyrannical means, to peaceful ends. Tyranny demands resistance, because otherwise, tyranny will win over all, until there is only one standing. Egoism is necessary for a balance of power and the little guy must not give in to tyranny in any shape or form.
Character is as much about the strength of resolve, as it is about the quiet and submissive. Christians tend to define their terms on the anceint texts that had ancient social situations that are not to be promoted today.
Sometimes character cannot be willed, as there are other intervening factors that must be considered. Last night I watched a program on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and depression. These are psychological illnesses that impact a person's ability to have control over their emotions or behavior. No one should fault another for a "lack of character" when stressors or illness is the real culprit.
Christians so often have a two dimensional view on the world. And those that don't see in "black and white" are doomed to be labelled as a "liberal", a "heretic", "not a Christian", "unbeliever", "reprobate", "morally stupid", "unrighteouss", "an infidel", etc.
Character is much more about how one handles oneself in a civil society, than it is about a definitive way of believing or behaving. Is one kind, considerate, polite, etc. These are qualities that are applauded across the spectrum of belief systems. One wonders, then what is the importance of the belief system?
This is where I believe that Christians are amiss.
Character is not one definitive way of being in the world, otherwise, there would not be various commitments and convictions. One's values do not necessarily determine how one will behave within their value system. Free societies allow individual the liberty, in fact, protect the right of the individual , as this is the classical definition of liberalism.
Authoritarian structures were never meant to be sanctioned within our form of government, as coercion is not the terminology of liberty or justice. All of us are equal under law, as the law in no respector of persons. And Christians, as well as non-Christians, are "not above the law".
Today, we have those in places of power who take advantage of their power for their own purposes, while diminishing their responsibility and accountability to 'we, the people". This is the formula for depotism. And it was not what the Founder's intended when they sought to make a "more perfect union".
A person of character chooses his course of action based upon his highest ideals, or principles. This cannot be defined by religious texts, unless one wants to limit religious freedom and conscience.
Politics does not allow principle when needs are immanant. Politics is a pragmatic science. Is a senator to 'vote no" on legislation that will be the death knell to his particular state, while understanding that the needs in his state are not as immanant as another? Survival of the fittest defines appropriately the political realm. Politics demands attention and decisions to be made with compromise and negotiation, so that something can get accomplished. Politics is "dirty business". Those who hold high ideals will be sorely disappointed if they think that anyone can survive in a climate of partisanship and individual competition, where money and power speak.
Sometimes it is the 'little guy" who can maintain his character, without compromising his principle, because he doesn't have to represent many and diverse voices in our country. He is held up to be the "ideal in virtuous character". This is the traditional "position" of the Christian, the peasant class, where they submitted unto death for the sake of the principle of peace.
The principle of peace should never further tyrannical means, to peaceful ends. Tyranny demands resistance, because otherwise, tyranny will win over all, until there is only one standing. Egoism is necessary for a balance of power and the little guy must not give in to tyranny in any shape or form.
Character is as much about the strength of resolve, as it is about the quiet and submissive. Christians tend to define their terms on the anceint texts that had ancient social situations that are not to be promoted today.
Sometimes character cannot be willed, as there are other intervening factors that must be considered. Last night I watched a program on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and depression. These are psychological illnesses that impact a person's ability to have control over their emotions or behavior. No one should fault another for a "lack of character" when stressors or illness is the real culprit.
Christians so often have a two dimensional view on the world. And those that don't see in "black and white" are doomed to be labelled as a "liberal", a "heretic", "not a Christian", "unbeliever", "reprobate", "morally stupid", "unrighteouss", "an infidel", etc.
Character is much more about how one handles oneself in a civil society, than it is about a definitive way of believing or behaving. Is one kind, considerate, polite, etc. These are qualities that are applauded across the spectrum of belief systems. One wonders, then what is the importance of the belief system?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
