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"!

Revolution Should Not Be Our Stance

Our government is the highest form of government, I believe, because it leaves room for "the human". Other governments have agendas or ideologies that are placed before "the human". This is why I believe that revolution should not be the stance toward our government. We have laws and representatives that we can appeal to. And we have laws that protect our right to express our opinion, voice our concerns, and assemble with others to represent our "voice".

Revolutionaries revolutionize whenever "the human" is disregarded, disrespected, or dismissed. "The human" is when liberty rules over the people and the "rule of law' protects such liberty. Today, we have many problems because we don't appreciate why our Founding Fathers formed the government like they did. The balance of power was to protect against abuses of power. And the judiary branch was to remain independent from influence, while the legislature was to represent the various "powers" that represent "the people"; the individual, the State and the Federal. Diversity in unity was an important value for our nation.

Today, our government is being challenged by minorities that think their rights come before "the people". The "rights" movement represent such groups as the Black Panthers, who want "justice" for past injustices. But, how are we or can we pay for what we didn't see at the time? Slavery was an accepted norm. And norms form society and maintain society's order. Women have not sought reparation for past discrimination or injustice!

Immigrants were always welcome on our shores and the "Statute of Liberty" stands at Ellis Island to represent those that found the United States as their land of freedom. But, today, those that infilterate our borders are disrespecting our country and its "rule of law". Those that work may be little more slaves, themselves. But, what of those that infillterate our country bringing in disease, drugs, fire-arms and wrong motivations? Don't those in leadership have a duty to protect the citizens from those that would bring our country harm? Illegal immigrants are little more than revolutionaries when they disrespect our Constitution.

The "Tea Parties" have been labelled as revolutionary, because of their identification with the Boston Tea Party. But, are these truly revolutionaries? Are citizens that ask their government to be accountable to its people revolutionary? Doesn't our "Bill of Rights" grant us the freedom of assembly? The problem, I believe, is in limiting freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech should not be limited unless it can be proven that it is "hate speech", which means that violent actions are intended. Such speech calls others to action in such a way that would bring about social chaos. Martin Luther King never used his "civil rights revolution" in such a way. He was a peaceful revolutionary. He called for dissent, but not violence. He called for resistance, but not revolution.

Our country is going through some serious difficulties presently and we, "the people" should be supportive of respecting our Constituional government. We should do everything we can to petition, dissent, speak out, and participate in our government, so that we, "the people" will not become, we, "the government"!

Revolution, Reform, and Reactionary Politics

Humans are made to be engaged in their environments. They are creative innovators of their 'worlds". And this is as it should be, for humans are unique in their individualities. It is only in a free and open society that such uniqueness can be formed, cultivated and sanctioned. Humans are made for liberty, for without it, there is an oppressive authoritarianism that over-rules the 'human element'.

Reactions are normal responses to oppressive government. History has borne out the facts of the matter when government becomes a boundary unto itself. Our Founders did not want government that ruled over humans, but humans to rule government. The Founders created our form of government because of another government's abuse of power. Representation is an important aspect of accountability and responsibility in government's leadership.

Reactions that have formed the "tea party" movement have been based on affirmations of individual liberty to pursue one's own ends. And this is what has helped to further liberty in general in American culture.

But, some have "moral concern' over America's de-meaning of values that form the child, and affirm human dignity. These political concerns are what the evangelicals have understood to be about abortion, euthanasia, and family values.

While the evangelical has sought to protect indivdual liberty in regards to monetary interests and certain choices of lifestyle, the religious left have "social concern" for the poor, not only within our own nation, but in other countries, as well. This has led to the "social gospel" movement.

Both these brands of Christian concern have united politics and religious understanding to further agenda about the individual's values. (What should drive a particular individual in their life choices?) Some have suggested that both sides must unite to bring about a fuller view of what concerns "the world", which if one is religous, is of concern to "god".

On the other side of the spectrum, the naturalists believes in limited resources that must be maintained by stewarship. This leftist political agenda supports the religious and their value of stewarding the world "under God". So, "world concerns" become religious concerns, such as the environment, healthcare, poverty, etc.

"One world" is what is of concern to all of us, but for different reasons. Values can unite, but just as readily disunify.

Reform is good for any society because it helps society to re-evaluate what is good or bad at a given time, and explains the reasons for such concern.

But, reactionary politics drives the stakes down without understanding or seeking to hear other people at the table. Arrogance of this sort dissolves our democratic process. And such attitudes of reaction make for revolution.

Revolution is what happens when there is no other recourse. Revolution is necessary when government has abused power, dishonored individuals, disrespected culture and ignored the law.

Such revolutionary times, are time that try men's souls!

History in the Making...

Many people who live in free societies, understand that humans have the ability to "make history". These like to "make their mark" in the world through many creative avenues. And free societies allow and encourage such activity.

History's "history" has been debated as to its understanding. I have been following a few blogs on the historicity of Jesus and the following traditions. Some say history is an "art", while others prefer to view history as a science.

Ancient historians were politically motivated, as well as situationally situated, as the 'elite' were the ones that made the rules, and "called the shots". Those that followed these ancient leaders viewed them as "gods". And theirs was the fate of a leader's ambition. The "Greeks" called it "fate". Our Founders called it Providence.

Myth was always useful in these societies to create meaning or to embellish the facts, so that leaders could manuever those under them to understand their vision and to co-operate.

In human development studies, James Fowler has found that faith at it highest development understands faith as "symbol" or mythological. These myths create meaningful "worlds" for social norms and standards. And it has been understood by the religious to be the basis of our "laws".

But, America's Founders also sought an opportunity to create a unique "vision" of liberty and justice for those under religious persecution. These were using the opportunities before them to find fortune, as well as liberty of life. Taxation was the point of "no return" for the colonists, as the abuse of power united factions that otherwsie would not have been united. And the result was a 'new nation" that was founded on the rights of men, and not the right of "gods".

I think today is no less a "point of no return" if those in power continue on their course, irregardless of how their constituencies view matters. Even though our county is representative, we do believe that there are avenues of "voice" and that public engagement is a necessary part of maintaining our liberty.

So, even though I am concerned for my nation, I have hope that things will turn around and that tomorrow will bring a 'new day'. Not all countries and their peoples have that right to liberty.

I am so grateful for our liberty.

Rights, the Press, and Reform or Revolution?

Government, whether national, parochial, or familial is instituted as a means of protection. Government is an ordering and structuring of society for the "common good'. Good government does not oppress, but gives a frame to live a "peaceful" life. Scriptures commend us to pray for government, so that our lives may be peaceful. But, what of reform or revolution, then?

Traditional "biblical" Christians are taught to submit, as 'this is the will of God in Christ Jesus, concerning you". This scripture is written with the assumption that "god controls" the events of life. This view is not affriming of what science knows to be true about time, the cosmos, and systems. Therefore, "biblical Christianity" does not exist, except in one's head. Personally, I find telling someone a "myth" to soothe their suffering, or soothe their conscience, is being dishonest.
But, theology has sought to bring about "hope" to give a reason in difficult situations or times. These theological "musings" are offensive, and can be horrendously oppressive.

The political realm is where "life happens". Politics drives policy, but ideas are what drive politics. The philosophical arguments about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is really where the battle should be waged.

Every human has life, but all do not have quality or liberty of life, much less the political freedom to pursue happiness. These are the practical issues that policy seeks to address on a global scale, but how? Liberty is not won except by exposing the costs of tyranny.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a political dissident for the U.S.S.R., in the March 15, 1976 article in U.S. News and World Report, said:

"Tyrants, bandits, puppets have come to power and pragmatice philosophy says: That
doesn't matter, we have to recognize them. And what is more, one should not consider
that the great principles of freedom finish at your own frontiers, that as long as you
have freedom, let the rest have pragmatism. No. Freedom is indivisible, and one has to
take a moral attitude toward it" (pg. 23).

The human heart is meant for freedom, and good government should allow freedom to the individual to pursue his own ends. Tyrannical governments have used many means to oppress; bad laws, no law, and God.

"All men are created equal with certain inalienable rights", "with liberty and justice for all", these are quotes that any American knows, and I hope, values. The principle is the value of the individual and the freedom that justice provides. No one should suffer under the hands of bad government, but most in this world, do. Americans do not live with fear of government interference in their private lives nor do we fear government paranoia, where government intrusively invades our physical space to demand an accounting.

Americans became a "people" because of the belief that none should be diminished or repressed. The cry of the Revolution was "no taxation without Representation". A Representative Republic "ideally" holds the leaders accountable to the people, not the people to the government. And the accountbility of the leader to the people they represent is the "vote".

In our free society, we are to give feedback to our representatives, as our voice is to be valued. If leaders are blind to the needs, values, suggestions of their people, then they have ceased to represent, and have become figure-heads or bandits of our treasury.

Free societies are only as free as the press. The press has great power in giving information to the people in our free society, but if the information is skewed, or suppressed, then the press is undermining our freedom, not just of the pertinent information, but our society as a whole. Again, let me quote Solzhenitsyn:

"The most important aspect of detente today is that there is not ideological detente. You
Western people simply can't grasp the power of Soviet propaganda."

Without free information, people are at the mercy of their rulers. I heard on a radio program yesterday, that some in our press are informed from the White House about news coverage. How one writes about the news can impact and influence public opinion. This adminstration obviously knows that without the press as a powerful weapon of reforming and revolutionizing our nation's values, "change" will not occur. Our society is to be an open and free one, but secret letters written by the President about national affairs, without accountability to Congress or the people, is acting without representing. The same independence of attitude was "applied" at Guantanamo Bay.

Government is a gift, but must be valued by responsible behavior. Leaders should be accountable, and the people fully informed. Otherwise, we are headed for the tyranny that Solzhenitsyn warned about. Americans must not allow that.

Science Is Religion's "Step-Child"?

Some believe that the world functions along separate lines of understanding, religion speaks for God, and science speaks to everything else. The problem of divorcing the two, is it leaves little room for religion and God. This is where the battle lines become fierce, as the exclusivist vent their fears by enforcing a "brittle" understanding of a text, or tradition. In Christian history, this is where fundamentalism was born. But, staunch stands do nothing to endear the Church in the public square.

Others would argue that "religion is science's step-child", because religion is just useful to serve other ends. Religion is to be a useful means to incorporate cooperation from the "feeble minded", who depend on religion. While dependence on religion may be true for identification, or cultural forms that help make the individual feel "at home", I think the attitude of "usefulness" is inappropriate and demeaning to others.

While I agree that tradition limits "free-thought", tradition is useful to serve the purposes of acculturation in a culture. Our American culture does not define itself on a primary religious tradition, as we believe that religion is a private matter. We affirm religious freedom and tolerance in our Bill of Rights and Constitution.

Just today, while talking with my hairdresser, who just became a deputy in the Episcopol Church, he informed me that the reason the Episcopol Church separated from the Anglican Church was because of the American Revolution. We were not be be subservient to a king, in our religion. This is a challenge today in the Anglican tradition, as well as other organized traditions. Where is authority and by what means are issues to be dicussed and decisions made?

Science has challenged our understanding of man and nature and we will never be finished with exploring all the avenues available in seeking undersanding of our physical world. The challenge for the religious, is to understand their faith within a scientific framework. Faith is not dependent on doctrine, or belief, or text, but on life itself. Therefore, science should not threaten the faithful, it should only challenge our minds in understanding any limitations on science. So, the call to the Church should be in ethics. Ethics brings pertinence to the Church and gives a voice in the public square.