All cultures in the human and animal "kingdoms" seem to intuitively "know" that social structures form their young. These social influencing elements in the human realm are family, friends, and ethnic tribe.
Social construction is the process of internalizing the social norms, and values in a certain culture. These norms, and values help the young to frame their understanding of the world. Identity is not fully formed in such environments, because of the young's dependent stage of development. The young need the environment to further the internalization process.
In free societies, the family is not stingently defined by outside sources, other than the values of those entering into that commitment. But, religious cultures deem it necessary to define such structures in a uniform way.
The dissolution of such stringent structures has led to much debate about whether it has brought value to society in general. Have such "flexible norms" produced young that have no conscience or regard for society as a value? Has it led to the demise of "civil society" because the young tend to act out of their resistance to what they deem to be oppressive? Or has society "grown" in its understanding of the human need for flexible norms?
The young need nurture. This fact is not debated, but there does come a time when the young must outgrow and think for themselves what is important and of value. Does strict upbringing leave room for promoting intellectural growth? Or does it produce guilt, anxiety, and fear whenever such boundaries are ignored, dissolved, or re-defined? Where is the responsibility of the parent, and teacher/professor?
The child must develop beyond helpless dependence, not only in the physical areas of his life, but also his personal areas. This is the formation of forming the child in his own image and not to a source outside of himself. And when the young adult finds that he has formed and thought out his own values, then he will then be able to commit to a social group, not because of "felt need", but because of his own chosen values.
Showing posts with label American culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American culture. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Economically Savy and Religiously Biased Breed a Culture of Mis-Guided "Interests"
Yesterday, I listened to a presentation on economics, and heard about a religious incident. Both concerned me, in where our country is "going".
The first was an economics presentation, defending the "small business model" to free enterprise. The problem for American prosperity, according to this economist, was "Big Business" which has ties to and protection from our legislators. This is where corporate greed and ethical violations conincide, I think.
Legislators take and make backroom deals that benefit their own pockets, as well as embellishing the corporation's interests. The problem is when power subverts "the common person's right" to play in the game of business. The little man, whether a small business owner or innovator of new products cannot compete with those who already have built their reputations, have a monopoly on the market and use it to obstruct justice for the little guy and our country, at large.
The report gave an example of an innovator that had made a syringe that was better than the predominant manufactor. The innovator has been fighting for his right to "buy into" the market, but pockets that are not as deep as corporate interests have a hard road to maintain. Most cannot afford the fight.
Not only does limiting innovative discoveries hinder our own culture, but it also limits American jobs. The large corporations are interested in getting the worker to work for the lowest possible wage, so they go overseas to protect thier profits.
The second concern I have is with American religious tradition, itself. Some religious people had made a "claim for God" about the deaths of homosexuals. Not only was the "message of God" done in the wrong context, but it was presumptuous of them to "speak for God" in the first place. "Who has known the mind of God"?
The cultural wars have been intensified because of absolute claims and fears about God's retribution. These religious people were convinced that God was judging these homonsexuals. It was the view that God intervened directly and individually in the history of men.
What used to be understood to be "God's Providence" has become human agency, such that those that "speak for God" feel they must intervene or "ELSE": judgment will come.
A more rational approach would be to look at human history, the disciplines in general, and understand that there is a 'way" that men have gone and what were the results, how do we understand human beings in thier complexity and what does that say about humans and society and its needs.
Otherwise, our culture is to be doomed with former Great Empires.
The first was an economics presentation, defending the "small business model" to free enterprise. The problem for American prosperity, according to this economist, was "Big Business" which has ties to and protection from our legislators. This is where corporate greed and ethical violations conincide, I think.
Legislators take and make backroom deals that benefit their own pockets, as well as embellishing the corporation's interests. The problem is when power subverts "the common person's right" to play in the game of business. The little man, whether a small business owner or innovator of new products cannot compete with those who already have built their reputations, have a monopoly on the market and use it to obstruct justice for the little guy and our country, at large.
The report gave an example of an innovator that had made a syringe that was better than the predominant manufactor. The innovator has been fighting for his right to "buy into" the market, but pockets that are not as deep as corporate interests have a hard road to maintain. Most cannot afford the fight.
Not only does limiting innovative discoveries hinder our own culture, but it also limits American jobs. The large corporations are interested in getting the worker to work for the lowest possible wage, so they go overseas to protect thier profits.
The second concern I have is with American religious tradition, itself. Some religious people had made a "claim for God" about the deaths of homosexuals. Not only was the "message of God" done in the wrong context, but it was presumptuous of them to "speak for God" in the first place. "Who has known the mind of God"?
The cultural wars have been intensified because of absolute claims and fears about God's retribution. These religious people were convinced that God was judging these homonsexuals. It was the view that God intervened directly and individually in the history of men.
What used to be understood to be "God's Providence" has become human agency, such that those that "speak for God" feel they must intervene or "ELSE": judgment will come.
A more rational approach would be to look at human history, the disciplines in general, and understand that there is a 'way" that men have gone and what were the results, how do we understand human beings in thier complexity and what does that say about humans and society and its needs.
Otherwise, our culture is to be doomed with former Great Empires.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Are All Cultures Equal?
Are all cultures equal is a question that faces us in the post-modern West. It is the basis of understanding "life" and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And since Americans believe that all men are created equal, as far as their innate similarities. There are also differences that are formed by the cultures that men inhabit. These are not ultimately equal in my opinion.
Our country believes that humans have an "inalienable right" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is a civil right that is determined by the individual, himself.
As our culture allows for divers viewpoints, we affirm the individual's right to own his own life, be responsible toward himself and our society. The responsibilities that our citizens must maintain are those that form our laws. We are equal under law, so we do not believe that anyone is "above the law", or should "subvert the law". We should be law abiding citizens.
But, today, there are those that believe that citizens should be mandated by the government to be their brother's keeper. This is what our liberal policies create and further; irresponsibility of individual citizens. Taxes go to "help" those so unfortunate.
The problem with viewing another as "unfortunate" is that this becomes his own self-perception. And that hinders his desire to become responsible. It "feeds" an unhealthy behavior through giving an unhealthy message.
Although domestic policy has been "damaged" by furthering the "welfare STATE", it is no less so with foreign policy.
Globalism tends to be formulated around multiculturalism. Although multiculturalism should be affirmed as a part of individual identity, it should no be condoned when it comes to universal standards. Why?
Universalizing what is particular deminishes the "ideals' needed to form unity or universal goals. Universal goals should be about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And these goals should be informed by individual differences, gifts and interests, not by some "cultural form" that inhibits individual growth, or ego development.
Are all cultures equal? Yes and No. Yes, as far as a culture is internalized, but not all are healthy environments for developing individuality. So, No, as far as the universal ideals of individual liberty that upholds responsible and self-governing "selves" as the greatest goal of culture.
Our country believes that humans have an "inalienable right" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is a civil right that is determined by the individual, himself.
As our culture allows for divers viewpoints, we affirm the individual's right to own his own life, be responsible toward himself and our society. The responsibilities that our citizens must maintain are those that form our laws. We are equal under law, so we do not believe that anyone is "above the law", or should "subvert the law". We should be law abiding citizens.
But, today, there are those that believe that citizens should be mandated by the government to be their brother's keeper. This is what our liberal policies create and further; irresponsibility of individual citizens. Taxes go to "help" those so unfortunate.
The problem with viewing another as "unfortunate" is that this becomes his own self-perception. And that hinders his desire to become responsible. It "feeds" an unhealthy behavior through giving an unhealthy message.
Although domestic policy has been "damaged" by furthering the "welfare STATE", it is no less so with foreign policy.
Globalism tends to be formulated around multiculturalism. Although multiculturalism should be affirmed as a part of individual identity, it should no be condoned when it comes to universal standards. Why?
Universalizing what is particular deminishes the "ideals' needed to form unity or universal goals. Universal goals should be about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And these goals should be informed by individual differences, gifts and interests, not by some "cultural form" that inhibits individual growth, or ego development.
Are all cultures equal? Yes and No. Yes, as far as a culture is internalized, but not all are healthy environments for developing individuality. So, No, as far as the universal ideals of individual liberty that upholds responsible and self-governing "selves" as the greatest goal of culture.
Monday, February 15, 2010
I Used to Like Sociology
My "first love" was psychology, but since my family was fundamentalists, they didn't want me to major in psychology. (They really didn't want me to go to college, but become a dental hygenist.) So, right out of high school, I chose to major in English. But, later chose to major in Sociology.
Since I married before finishing college, I was going to transfer to the new college shortly after moving and finish my degree. But, out of state tuition was prohibitive, so we decided to wait the year to establish residency and a lower tuition bill. But, an uplanned pregnancy changed the plans of my life for the next 13 years. I was too busy raising my family and establishing a "home".
As my husband changed vocations and tuition was underwritten by his institution, he encouraged me to finish my degree. But, the institution did not have a major in Sociology, only Social Work. I couldn't see myself committing to the socialistic view of welfare (at least that was the way I understood social work). And I still can't. I am too much of an individualist.
I used to like Sociology, as I used to be "enamored with family". But, family, and organizational structures as a whole leave a lot to be desired, when one comes to understand that these structures do not "care" about the individual, only their agenda, or goals. This is not as it should be in families, but all too often the conservative have a "right way" of teaching that they can't see the child themself. Or the more liberalized are too concerned for their career to be bothered with "such nonsense" of child-rearing to consider the needs of the child. (I know that I am overly sterotyping "cultures", but just to make my point...).
And then, there is the "culture" of "evil", which is "inhabiting" a organizational structuring that doesn't "see" the parts for the whole. This is the culture of "social death", and "isolation". The individual's own life is consumed and assumed by the organizational structure. And it kills and dishonors the life of the individual. This is what collectivism does, because it is caught up with its own vision, purpose, plan or "image". The politics of collectivism is demeaning and demoralizing, unless one is "at the top".
So, I don't think I like Sociology, like I once did. And yet, I know that the world must survive by organization.
Since I married before finishing college, I was going to transfer to the new college shortly after moving and finish my degree. But, out of state tuition was prohibitive, so we decided to wait the year to establish residency and a lower tuition bill. But, an uplanned pregnancy changed the plans of my life for the next 13 years. I was too busy raising my family and establishing a "home".
As my husband changed vocations and tuition was underwritten by his institution, he encouraged me to finish my degree. But, the institution did not have a major in Sociology, only Social Work. I couldn't see myself committing to the socialistic view of welfare (at least that was the way I understood social work). And I still can't. I am too much of an individualist.
I used to like Sociology, as I used to be "enamored with family". But, family, and organizational structures as a whole leave a lot to be desired, when one comes to understand that these structures do not "care" about the individual, only their agenda, or goals. This is not as it should be in families, but all too often the conservative have a "right way" of teaching that they can't see the child themself. Or the more liberalized are too concerned for their career to be bothered with "such nonsense" of child-rearing to consider the needs of the child. (I know that I am overly sterotyping "cultures", but just to make my point...).
And then, there is the "culture" of "evil", which is "inhabiting" a organizational structuring that doesn't "see" the parts for the whole. This is the culture of "social death", and "isolation". The individual's own life is consumed and assumed by the organizational structure. And it kills and dishonors the life of the individual. This is what collectivism does, because it is caught up with its own vision, purpose, plan or "image". The politics of collectivism is demeaning and demoralizing, unless one is "at the top".
So, I don't think I like Sociology, like I once did. And yet, I know that the world must survive by organization.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Art, As Expression and Free Speech
Artists are known to be a "little different". Perhaps, this is a stereotype, but it seems that artists do "see" things differently, "feel" things deeply, and express things vividly.
All art is a mixture of culture, history, and artist. This is why art is so "fun". Art reveals values, and the philosophy that forms the culture, as well as expresses something about the artist himself. Art is of value for itself because it reveals what is experienced in the present and the past throught the artist's eyes.
So, in thinking this morning about color and how to arrange the apartment and its furniture, I also thought about free speech, I realized that art is speech and art is expression. So, art is a form of "free speech" in societies. The question is: where are the lines in regards to art? Should there be lines about what is appropriate art? Does art form culture or is art a reflection of culture?
These questions are like asking the nurture/nature questions. Questions like these can never really be answered fully, as they are so intertwined. Whenever we ask such questions, then we ask about beginnings. What forms society and its values and meaning? I think many great artists are never really accepted by the social norm of their day, because they see "ahead" or understand principles of universialtiy that may not be reflected in a certain cultural time frame.
In the social frame these are social reformers, and in the humanities frame, these are the artists of literature, and art in its various forms. Art speaks to the heart before the head can get in the way. Because art reflects the "human" in a way that other things can't.
Just for example, my husband told me that he felt the apartment was "cold". When I told a couple of other people what he said, they responded that "he needed to turn up the heat". Their answer was an answer of science. But, what Wim really meant was that the apartment did not have "my decorator's stamp" on it. He felt an emotional coldness, because I don't like white walls. And he missed some of my personal taste in the apartment. The "flavor" of art, cannot be expressed by the chemicals that make up the paint.
All art is a mixture of culture, history, and artist. This is why art is so "fun". Art reveals values, and the philosophy that forms the culture, as well as expresses something about the artist himself. Art is of value for itself because it reveals what is experienced in the present and the past throught the artist's eyes.
So, in thinking this morning about color and how to arrange the apartment and its furniture, I also thought about free speech, I realized that art is speech and art is expression. So, art is a form of "free speech" in societies. The question is: where are the lines in regards to art? Should there be lines about what is appropriate art? Does art form culture or is art a reflection of culture?
These questions are like asking the nurture/nature questions. Questions like these can never really be answered fully, as they are so intertwined. Whenever we ask such questions, then we ask about beginnings. What forms society and its values and meaning? I think many great artists are never really accepted by the social norm of their day, because they see "ahead" or understand principles of universialtiy that may not be reflected in a certain cultural time frame.
In the social frame these are social reformers, and in the humanities frame, these are the artists of literature, and art in its various forms. Art speaks to the heart before the head can get in the way. Because art reflects the "human" in a way that other things can't.
Just for example, my husband told me that he felt the apartment was "cold". When I told a couple of other people what he said, they responded that "he needed to turn up the heat". Their answer was an answer of science. But, what Wim really meant was that the apartment did not have "my decorator's stamp" on it. He felt an emotional coldness, because I don't like white walls. And he missed some of my personal taste in the apartment. The "flavor" of art, cannot be expressed by the chemicals that make up the paint.
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".
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Cultural Diversity Has Some Limits
As has been reported in certain science/religion journals, humans are prone to process things wholisically. (I really don't know how social scientists observe or measure such things) And, it seems that such is the case with the past 24-36 hours for me.
Sunday I read and blogged on my reading about 'the Dutch" and experiencing their culture through the eyes of an artistic Washington woman. She photographed and wrote and I resonated.
My pastor preached a sermon on the relationship of marriage and Monday I started to think again about civil unions, and Church and State issues.
Last night, being bored and alone, I watched a movie based on a factual case of teen pregnancy and its effect on a local high school. Even though the drama was a "little over the top", the message was how teen pregnancy is devastating to the whole community, as well as the teens involved. Abstenance is not realistic in an idealized and impulsive teen world that is bombarded by sexual messages wherever they turn.
And this morning it was reported that many European cultures are banning the "burka", a Muslim woman's head covering. This ban is only in public places and the reason was to protect Western culture.
What do all these experiences have in common? Culture, values, and impact on others.
Although I do resonate with Dutch culture because of their historicity and openness, I also resonate with the individualism in American culture. One must evaluate what makes for a culture and why. What is important to a culture and is that of primary importance for the whole to survive. That should be the question of what is of value to further and what is not.
This brings me to matters of dress, when it concerns certain religious garb. If there is a necessary covering because of a certain climate, which was most probably the case with the "burka", then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But, when a religious tradition defines certain standards as mandantory because of the tradition's need to control the behavior of another human being, then I think it does not qualify to be upheld in a different culture. no matter the argument of "tolerance".
Religions have developed over the ages and those in power in these traditions had a vested interest in protecting their power. So, secularism would protect from a dominating religious tradition, which is necessary to remain a free society.
But, while religious traditions can protect their values for their own purposes, there are certain values that are necessary to protect for society's sake. Such is the issue of the family. Marriage is the foundation of society and it's future citizens. So, the family is certainly to be an important focus and interest for society at large. Since the family is so important many issues facing Western culture and it's families are necessary to challenge, study, and change.
The issue of teen pregnancy is of major concern and importance to society because it limits the teen's ability to further their future and it brings stress and pain on the teen's immediate family, as well as the reprecussions of the newborn's needs that might not be met by a teen mother's immature emotional responses/reactions.
Society finds itself "bringing up baby", but not in the sense of the past, when communities were close, life was slow and the child could find its place in the larger world without feeling "lost". Today social service agencies are stressed beyond measure and the Church shuns those whose behavior has not met their standard.
Conservatism wants to hold to past tradition for good reason. The family is the center of the child's identity and security. But, society has always brought challenges to past traditions and must address how to answer those challenges today. Abstinence is the "ideal", when it comes to teen sex, but the statistics do not bear out that Christian teens are any "better" at keeping their pledge of chasity than the larger teen population. This fact alone has bred many sectarian groups that try to protect their teens from such behavior. Though this is one response in our society, is this the only response the Church should sanction? Should society at large be of concern for the Church? And how is that challenge to be met?
Today's challenges reach beyond teen pregnancy, which has always challenged the mores of our society. Today the challenge to marriage and the family is homosexuality. Should homosexuals be alowed to express their innate desires within the boundaries of marriage? Or is marriage the tradition of the Church alone, and should never be condoned by the sanction of the insititution of marriage?
My pastor's sermon was about marriage and what makes a good marriage. Sex is not the recipe for a good marriage, but a relationship that is trustworthy and valued for its own sake. Children are a result of the physical intimacy of marriage, but should never be the purpose for marriage. Otherwise, many couples, whether older or barren, have no "right" to be married. We should think deeply about what our values are and why we have those values before we write off a challenge to tradition's "tradition".
Liberty of conscience was the value of our Founding Fathers. We must continue that tradition to continue the value they had of a "free society". A society that is free from domination of any kind, as tradition should not dominate a culture's values, at the expense of cultural needs for change.
At the same time, the Founder's knew that the value of tradition was the foundation of society's values, without them, society suffers superficiality and incongrence.
Sunday I read and blogged on my reading about 'the Dutch" and experiencing their culture through the eyes of an artistic Washington woman. She photographed and wrote and I resonated.
My pastor preached a sermon on the relationship of marriage and Monday I started to think again about civil unions, and Church and State issues.
Last night, being bored and alone, I watched a movie based on a factual case of teen pregnancy and its effect on a local high school. Even though the drama was a "little over the top", the message was how teen pregnancy is devastating to the whole community, as well as the teens involved. Abstenance is not realistic in an idealized and impulsive teen world that is bombarded by sexual messages wherever they turn.
And this morning it was reported that many European cultures are banning the "burka", a Muslim woman's head covering. This ban is only in public places and the reason was to protect Western culture.
What do all these experiences have in common? Culture, values, and impact on others.
Although I do resonate with Dutch culture because of their historicity and openness, I also resonate with the individualism in American culture. One must evaluate what makes for a culture and why. What is important to a culture and is that of primary importance for the whole to survive. That should be the question of what is of value to further and what is not.
This brings me to matters of dress, when it concerns certain religious garb. If there is a necessary covering because of a certain climate, which was most probably the case with the "burka", then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But, when a religious tradition defines certain standards as mandantory because of the tradition's need to control the behavior of another human being, then I think it does not qualify to be upheld in a different culture. no matter the argument of "tolerance".
Religions have developed over the ages and those in power in these traditions had a vested interest in protecting their power. So, secularism would protect from a dominating religious tradition, which is necessary to remain a free society.
But, while religious traditions can protect their values for their own purposes, there are certain values that are necessary to protect for society's sake. Such is the issue of the family. Marriage is the foundation of society and it's future citizens. So, the family is certainly to be an important focus and interest for society at large. Since the family is so important many issues facing Western culture and it's families are necessary to challenge, study, and change.
The issue of teen pregnancy is of major concern and importance to society because it limits the teen's ability to further their future and it brings stress and pain on the teen's immediate family, as well as the reprecussions of the newborn's needs that might not be met by a teen mother's immature emotional responses/reactions.
Society finds itself "bringing up baby", but not in the sense of the past, when communities were close, life was slow and the child could find its place in the larger world without feeling "lost". Today social service agencies are stressed beyond measure and the Church shuns those whose behavior has not met their standard.
Conservatism wants to hold to past tradition for good reason. The family is the center of the child's identity and security. But, society has always brought challenges to past traditions and must address how to answer those challenges today. Abstinence is the "ideal", when it comes to teen sex, but the statistics do not bear out that Christian teens are any "better" at keeping their pledge of chasity than the larger teen population. This fact alone has bred many sectarian groups that try to protect their teens from such behavior. Though this is one response in our society, is this the only response the Church should sanction? Should society at large be of concern for the Church? And how is that challenge to be met?
Today's challenges reach beyond teen pregnancy, which has always challenged the mores of our society. Today the challenge to marriage and the family is homosexuality. Should homosexuals be alowed to express their innate desires within the boundaries of marriage? Or is marriage the tradition of the Church alone, and should never be condoned by the sanction of the insititution of marriage?
My pastor's sermon was about marriage and what makes a good marriage. Sex is not the recipe for a good marriage, but a relationship that is trustworthy and valued for its own sake. Children are a result of the physical intimacy of marriage, but should never be the purpose for marriage. Otherwise, many couples, whether older or barren, have no "right" to be married. We should think deeply about what our values are and why we have those values before we write off a challenge to tradition's "tradition".
Liberty of conscience was the value of our Founding Fathers. We must continue that tradition to continue the value they had of a "free society". A society that is free from domination of any kind, as tradition should not dominate a culture's values, at the expense of cultural needs for change.
At the same time, the Founder's knew that the value of tradition was the foundation of society's values, without them, society suffers superficiality and incongrence.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Today, I Saw and Remembered...
Today, I saw and remembered the Netherlands. It was a sense of "home" for me, as this is my husband's "homeland". Most of his family still live there. And today, I ran across a blog that had some marvelous pictures of the blogger's visit there. It was nostalgic for me. But, her written entry on November 2, 2009, grabbed me heartfully. Her entry described the "culture" very well.
This the entry of "D.C. Weather Report: Mostly Bad News" blog by Iggy Bloggit from Washington D.C. ...
"When I stepped off the platform (after taking a train from the airport to Amsterdam) I saw the future: people living artfully. I arrived into a performance of style and beauty, art and grace. Ahh the Dutchies. Striking and silent. Poise in the way they ride their clunky bicycles, drive their tiny cars. Beautiful and brilliant. Ongoing preservation of really old architecture and traditions of keeping an open mind, speaking openly and to the point, tolerating and living and loving together. Recognition of value in history and future. The past and future together, a perfect equation for a successful present.How do they do it? How does such a place exist, that lives art in every corner?
Even scaffolding and trash bins and mailboxes are decorated with simple illustrations or constructed in such a style to make them pleasing, to add to the collective. My impression is that it is history and an attitude of tolerance that has allowed them to appreciate life, to move beyond matters of disagreement and work together from all sides of political, religious, scientific, and personal perspectives and form a more perfect society. Oh, you are religious? Great, enjoy the meaning in the beautiful ancient churches. Oh, you are homosexual? Have a great life, we were the first country to legalize your marriage. Welcome welcome everyone, we may not all live the same way but we all live, all the same. Our differences make us more interesting.
When I look I can see golden age and holocaust, renaissance and crusade. Is "historically rich" really so important? My high school French teacher thought so, she made it clear what she thought of the US and none of us understood her distaste. That was a long time ago, I've come to understand what she meant. But never to the aching degree I felt in a land where I looked at the people and finally felt I'd found my other elf girl selves. They looked like me! Long and blonde and legs and creamy features. I love and hide behind my personal identity as the white minority in every place I've lived. This disturbed something in me, to see what I would have been if my family a few generations back had not left Western Europe. I felt proud to be European. But though my longings to explore further are directed away from the US, there is a certain cool thing about being American too, and surviving it :) After all we did just elect a black president... and yes, that is unbelievable worldwide still a year later, worth referencing again and again.
One evening I sat with friends outside a bar on the canal in Utrecht.A stranger sat down beside me, looked to be about 40. Big guy, Moroccan. Don't know which of us started it but we settled into a conversation, the bold honest talk of strangers.
"So you are not Dutch?" he asked.
"I am American. I live in Washington, DC."
"Oh, I like to meet an American," he said. I didn't ask him why, but a few minutes later he told me.
"So how old were you when all of this shit happen?"
"I'm 28," I said, trying to follow him.
"So 8 years ago. You were 20. You were in DC? What was it like there?"
"No," I caught up to his meaning.
"I was in Hawai'i. It was early in the morning. We all knew of it, right away."
"Ahh," he said. A few minutes later: "Do you like to know where I was?"
"Yes, of course."
"I was in prison."
"Here in the Netherlands?"
"No. In Morocco."
"What for?" Immediately I felt like an ass for asking, but he was cool in his reply, validating my question.
"It was not for rape, or anything like that. It was not for any thing."
"Did you learn of it right away, do they tell you in prison?"
"We learned, but not right away. I was not so happy about it. I tell you, you go to America and tell your friends. You go to DC and tell your friends, I am part of Islam and they do not ask me permission to do this.
"A personal apology, for an event with shaky details and worldwide effect.
"I will tell them," I said. "I understand."
He nodded.
I said, "They do not ask me permission about things, either."
We sipped our drinks and understood.
This the entry of "D.C. Weather Report: Mostly Bad News" blog by Iggy Bloggit from Washington D.C. ...
"When I stepped off the platform (after taking a train from the airport to Amsterdam) I saw the future: people living artfully. I arrived into a performance of style and beauty, art and grace. Ahh the Dutchies. Striking and silent. Poise in the way they ride their clunky bicycles, drive their tiny cars. Beautiful and brilliant. Ongoing preservation of really old architecture and traditions of keeping an open mind, speaking openly and to the point, tolerating and living and loving together. Recognition of value in history and future. The past and future together, a perfect equation for a successful present.How do they do it? How does such a place exist, that lives art in every corner?
Even scaffolding and trash bins and mailboxes are decorated with simple illustrations or constructed in such a style to make them pleasing, to add to the collective. My impression is that it is history and an attitude of tolerance that has allowed them to appreciate life, to move beyond matters of disagreement and work together from all sides of political, religious, scientific, and personal perspectives and form a more perfect society. Oh, you are religious? Great, enjoy the meaning in the beautiful ancient churches. Oh, you are homosexual? Have a great life, we were the first country to legalize your marriage. Welcome welcome everyone, we may not all live the same way but we all live, all the same. Our differences make us more interesting.
When I look I can see golden age and holocaust, renaissance and crusade. Is "historically rich" really so important? My high school French teacher thought so, she made it clear what she thought of the US and none of us understood her distaste. That was a long time ago, I've come to understand what she meant. But never to the aching degree I felt in a land where I looked at the people and finally felt I'd found my other elf girl selves. They looked like me! Long and blonde and legs and creamy features. I love and hide behind my personal identity as the white minority in every place I've lived. This disturbed something in me, to see what I would have been if my family a few generations back had not left Western Europe. I felt proud to be European. But though my longings to explore further are directed away from the US, there is a certain cool thing about being American too, and surviving it :) After all we did just elect a black president... and yes, that is unbelievable worldwide still a year later, worth referencing again and again.
One evening I sat with friends outside a bar on the canal in Utrecht.A stranger sat down beside me, looked to be about 40. Big guy, Moroccan. Don't know which of us started it but we settled into a conversation, the bold honest talk of strangers.
"So you are not Dutch?" he asked.
"I am American. I live in Washington, DC."
"Oh, I like to meet an American," he said. I didn't ask him why, but a few minutes later he told me.
"So how old were you when all of this shit happen?"
"I'm 28," I said, trying to follow him.
"So 8 years ago. You were 20. You were in DC? What was it like there?"
"No," I caught up to his meaning.
"I was in Hawai'i. It was early in the morning. We all knew of it, right away."
"Ahh," he said. A few minutes later: "Do you like to know where I was?"
"Yes, of course."
"I was in prison."
"Here in the Netherlands?"
"No. In Morocco."
"What for?" Immediately I felt like an ass for asking, but he was cool in his reply, validating my question.
"It was not for rape, or anything like that. It was not for any thing."
"Did you learn of it right away, do they tell you in prison?"
"We learned, but not right away. I was not so happy about it. I tell you, you go to America and tell your friends. You go to DC and tell your friends, I am part of Islam and they do not ask me permission to do this.
"A personal apology, for an event with shaky details and worldwide effect.
"I will tell them," I said. "I understand."
He nodded.
I said, "They do not ask me permission about things, either."
We sipped our drinks and understood.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Seriously....Human
I have a hunch about human nature that I think is universal. Humans want to be taken seriously. What does that mean?
Humans want to be valued for their own sake. This means that humans will not be agendas on another's plate of delicacy. They do not have to fear being devoured by another's ferocious and unwhetted appetite or passion. The individual can live peacefully in his society without fear of intrusion of his personal space, whether physical, spiritual or psychological. Society exists for the individual's well-being, and as the individual flourishes, then society will flourish as a result.
Socialistic understanding is necessary for foundational learning, as in the establishment of a social identity, but adults do not always understand themselves in liberal or free societies as always functioning within their familial frames. Individuals, in this sense, are unique in framing or forming their identifying factors.
People desire to be known, and that means that we allow another to grow, become and be without dominating their "way of being" in the world.
Although my hunch and my analysis is "ideal" and won't be found in this world in all places at all times, I believe it is what a human "is".
I recently read a review of a book on a new understanding of genetics and biology. The review was supporting the book's contention that Darwin's evolutionary theory was too simplistic. Even a Neo-Darwinian view will not describe a philosophical or theological coherent view of the world in natural terms.
The nature/nurture debate should not be viewed as separate or conflicting compartments of personhood, but interdependent, just as the "self" and society are interdependent. Internalization of "all that is" is uniquely configured, it seems, just as our DNA coding.
The "new" understanding it seems is a cooperative wholistic view that is immensely complex and irreducible.
How do we take this complexity seriously, when there are so many trying to "take it apart" so that humans can be understood? And what is the reason for wanting this understanding? What will this kind of knowledge breed?
I am not suggesting that psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, natural scientists should not investigate human beings or human societies. I just wonder what is the purpose of such knowledge, and if it is worth the costs to gain that knowledge.
Humans want to be valued for their own sake. This means that humans will not be agendas on another's plate of delicacy. They do not have to fear being devoured by another's ferocious and unwhetted appetite or passion. The individual can live peacefully in his society without fear of intrusion of his personal space, whether physical, spiritual or psychological. Society exists for the individual's well-being, and as the individual flourishes, then society will flourish as a result.
Socialistic understanding is necessary for foundational learning, as in the establishment of a social identity, but adults do not always understand themselves in liberal or free societies as always functioning within their familial frames. Individuals, in this sense, are unique in framing or forming their identifying factors.
People desire to be known, and that means that we allow another to grow, become and be without dominating their "way of being" in the world.
Although my hunch and my analysis is "ideal" and won't be found in this world in all places at all times, I believe it is what a human "is".
I recently read a review of a book on a new understanding of genetics and biology. The review was supporting the book's contention that Darwin's evolutionary theory was too simplistic. Even a Neo-Darwinian view will not describe a philosophical or theological coherent view of the world in natural terms.
The nature/nurture debate should not be viewed as separate or conflicting compartments of personhood, but interdependent, just as the "self" and society are interdependent. Internalization of "all that is" is uniquely configured, it seems, just as our DNA coding.
The "new" understanding it seems is a cooperative wholistic view that is immensely complex and irreducible.
How do we take this complexity seriously, when there are so many trying to "take it apart" so that humans can be understood? And what is the reason for wanting this understanding? What will this kind of knowledge breed?
I am not suggesting that psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, natural scientists should not investigate human beings or human societies. I just wonder what is the purpose of such knowledge, and if it is worth the costs to gain that knowledge.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Why I Like D.C
My husband and I have been a "part" of the D.C. area since 1983. It is familiar territory for us. It is "home" in many ways, because "our" lives began there with our children. And we have gone back there every year for at least several weeks, to serve on 'active duty'. D.C. holds many memories that have become a "part" of "us".
The memories of D.C. are of its diverse culture, which allows freedom of thought and life. It is the center of our nation's 'power', which I have come to cherish. D.C. is a cultural hub where one can have learning experiences of all kinds. And D.C. doesn't "care" whether you exist or not. It has the atmosphere of "city life".
D.C. has become representative of 'our values': diversity, challenge, stimulating, culture, and the center of our government. As our children have grown up, and now, with Nate gone, we do not have our family dinners around the table, as much. And when we do, Nate isn't there anymore. Rebekah has her own family and Daniel has recently married and has integrated into his wife's family. So,these are all values that bond my husband and myself these days.
The memories of D.C. are of its diverse culture, which allows freedom of thought and life. It is the center of our nation's 'power', which I have come to cherish. D.C. is a cultural hub where one can have learning experiences of all kinds. And D.C. doesn't "care" whether you exist or not. It has the atmosphere of "city life".
D.C. has become representative of 'our values': diversity, challenge, stimulating, culture, and the center of our government. As our children have grown up, and now, with Nate gone, we do not have our family dinners around the table, as much. And when we do, Nate isn't there anymore. Rebekah has her own family and Daniel has recently married and has integrated into his wife's family. So,these are all values that bond my husband and myself these days.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Discrimination About Discrimination
Civil rights has a turbulant history in American culture. And we are still "fighting for civil rights". But, has civil rights outweighed the value of society's value of "the common good" because of its overemphasis?
Minority rights "won the day" when minoritiesad the right to be represented through "quotas". Quotas brings hand-wringing to some camps that discriminate by "nature". That is, they discriminate to define themselves apart from the larger context of society. Such is the case with a conservative school and homosexual teachers.
Minority rights has been accepted as a "standard" of fairness. And minority rights are protected by civil liberties. But, are civil liberties just as keen on protecting a "creationist educator"? I believe so. But, the cultural climate is not conducive, these days, for diversity, as just as in quotas, there is a conscious effort to value the "politically correct".
I think that our society has really baffled others, as we have no culture that supports a generalized view of life, as we believe in individual liberties and cultural diversity. This is all welll and good, until the culture becomes so diverse that there is no consensus of any kind to appeal to rationality. This is what America faces in its "culture wars".
Is everyone going to get represented equally? Or will those who have 'politically incorrect" views going to be discriminated against, because the power of the government has the force to "keep them in line"? Is government "protecting us" from information "for our own good"?
Conservative churches are afriad that they will have to pledge allegience to the "cultural ideal" of diversity, at the expense of dissolving the values of the churches populace. Atheists are "drooling at the mouth" over such unfortunate situations, as they might want to make a case against religious freedom on the basis of "discrimination". Our Founders would be appalled!
Each religious group has just as much right to survive in the "cultural wars" as a minority. But, minoirity rights are politically correct because these vote in the next election. Conservative organizational structures do not vote and the individuals in such organizations probably wouldn't vote for a "plural view" of society in the first place. So, politically, the conservative organization is marginalized or useful only to promote agendas that "appear to be fair", while "hoodwinking those in its bow".
The only solution to the cultural wars is the libertarian position. Individuals taking responsibility for their own lives, without govenment interference. This way there are no 'priviledged positions" that give one a 'right over another", and there are no priviledged "people" because of a 'right" made to bring retribution. And government would have to listen to those whose liberties are bing plundered. Government would finally be held accountable to the people, and not the people to the government.
Our country has changed in regards to entitlement. No one deserves anything other than proper respect and dignity, as a human being and being treated equally under law as a citizen. But, nowadays, young people are able to take time out from school and dont' have to hold down a job while in school ,because parents are wealthy enough to "make it easy". Some of these young people grow up to expect the world to "stand at attention" for them and when it doesn't, "Mama can't do anything about it".
My grandfather and those in his generation grew up understanding that life was about working to make a living, being responsible to their government in serving their country and acting respectfully to authority. Today, this is not the case and society suffers because of it.
The 50's brought America prosperity that spoiled us, but allowed us the freedom to innovate, as we were also wealthy enough to not worry if we didn't make the money right away. There was enough to put "food on the table". Today, we are back to square one, working feverishly to "make a living".
I heard that some believe this economic crisis is good for families, as it demands that they spend more time eating together around the table and playing games at home. Though these "images" bring 'warmth to our hearts", these images are not of everyone's family. Financial concerns are the number one culprit of marital discord. And some who face financial crisis will have to get a second job, instead of eating around the table with their children, these will be more tired and more absent from their families, even when they are at home.
Prosperity is not the enemy, though Marxist ideologues would like to sell us that "bill of goods". Prosperity is a sign of hard work, innovation, wise decision making, investment, responsibility, and self-governance. The problem with today's prosperity is that too many Americans bought too much too soon and got in debt over their heads. And those in the financial fields got greedy of gaining on their investments at too high an interest rate. It is always easy to play with other people's money and livlihoods.
So discrimination is not just about race, but also about choice, value, and lifestyle. No one can make right decisons for you, as individuals must make that choice for themselves for it to have any moral value. Americans have not been used to moral dilemmas, or ethical evaluations for the most part.
And not remembering the mistakes of the past, ensures that we will experience the results of those mistakes again.
Minority rights "won the day" when minoritiesad the right to be represented through "quotas". Quotas brings hand-wringing to some camps that discriminate by "nature". That is, they discriminate to define themselves apart from the larger context of society. Such is the case with a conservative school and homosexual teachers.
Minority rights has been accepted as a "standard" of fairness. And minority rights are protected by civil liberties. But, are civil liberties just as keen on protecting a "creationist educator"? I believe so. But, the cultural climate is not conducive, these days, for diversity, as just as in quotas, there is a conscious effort to value the "politically correct".
I think that our society has really baffled others, as we have no culture that supports a generalized view of life, as we believe in individual liberties and cultural diversity. This is all welll and good, until the culture becomes so diverse that there is no consensus of any kind to appeal to rationality. This is what America faces in its "culture wars".
Is everyone going to get represented equally? Or will those who have 'politically incorrect" views going to be discriminated against, because the power of the government has the force to "keep them in line"? Is government "protecting us" from information "for our own good"?
Conservative churches are afriad that they will have to pledge allegience to the "cultural ideal" of diversity, at the expense of dissolving the values of the churches populace. Atheists are "drooling at the mouth" over such unfortunate situations, as they might want to make a case against religious freedom on the basis of "discrimination". Our Founders would be appalled!
Each religious group has just as much right to survive in the "cultural wars" as a minority. But, minoirity rights are politically correct because these vote in the next election. Conservative organizational structures do not vote and the individuals in such organizations probably wouldn't vote for a "plural view" of society in the first place. So, politically, the conservative organization is marginalized or useful only to promote agendas that "appear to be fair", while "hoodwinking those in its bow".
The only solution to the cultural wars is the libertarian position. Individuals taking responsibility for their own lives, without govenment interference. This way there are no 'priviledged positions" that give one a 'right over another", and there are no priviledged "people" because of a 'right" made to bring retribution. And government would have to listen to those whose liberties are bing plundered. Government would finally be held accountable to the people, and not the people to the government.
Our country has changed in regards to entitlement. No one deserves anything other than proper respect and dignity, as a human being and being treated equally under law as a citizen. But, nowadays, young people are able to take time out from school and dont' have to hold down a job while in school ,because parents are wealthy enough to "make it easy". Some of these young people grow up to expect the world to "stand at attention" for them and when it doesn't, "Mama can't do anything about it".
My grandfather and those in his generation grew up understanding that life was about working to make a living, being responsible to their government in serving their country and acting respectfully to authority. Today, this is not the case and society suffers because of it.
The 50's brought America prosperity that spoiled us, but allowed us the freedom to innovate, as we were also wealthy enough to not worry if we didn't make the money right away. There was enough to put "food on the table". Today, we are back to square one, working feverishly to "make a living".
I heard that some believe this economic crisis is good for families, as it demands that they spend more time eating together around the table and playing games at home. Though these "images" bring 'warmth to our hearts", these images are not of everyone's family. Financial concerns are the number one culprit of marital discord. And some who face financial crisis will have to get a second job, instead of eating around the table with their children, these will be more tired and more absent from their families, even when they are at home.
Prosperity is not the enemy, though Marxist ideologues would like to sell us that "bill of goods". Prosperity is a sign of hard work, innovation, wise decision making, investment, responsibility, and self-governance. The problem with today's prosperity is that too many Americans bought too much too soon and got in debt over their heads. And those in the financial fields got greedy of gaining on their investments at too high an interest rate. It is always easy to play with other people's money and livlihoods.
So discrimination is not just about race, but also about choice, value, and lifestyle. No one can make right decisons for you, as individuals must make that choice for themselves for it to have any moral value. Americans have not been used to moral dilemmas, or ethical evaluations for the most part.
And not remembering the mistakes of the past, ensures that we will experience the results of those mistakes again.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
A Sociologist and His Views of Yound "Emergents"
Tonight my husband and I had the opportunity to hear Chris Smith, a professor of sociology at Notre Dame. He had been invited by the honors college and the President to give a talk about his new book, "Souls in Transition".
Dr. Smith has widely studied and viewed American society from many aspects; history, culture, religion, psychology, modernity, and social structures. He said that the emerging adult generation (ages 18-29) are marrying 5 years later, experiencing many kinds of relationships and experimenting with different lifestyles, before settling down and taking responsibility. He thinks that this is due to a 'post industrial" society, where work is not as valued as leisure, the prevalance of birth control, and alternate living arrangements and parents supporting adult children into their 20's. He finds that the adult culture is directly responsible for the environment that the children acclimate to. So, parents are ultimately responsible for their children and how they succeed.
Religion is not influencing this age group as it had in the past. And families in general are not experiencing a serious commitment to religion, as evangelical religion is infilterated by consumerism and "watered-down" commitment.
When asked how he defined religion, he acknowledged that this was a big question in many disciplines, but that he was talking about the practice of a certain or specific religion or denomination. And he suggested that the differences in our culture, breed tolerance, which was a good thing. He spoke against having an extreme view in regards to "truth" and convictions. He said that there was a third and "better way" that promotes democracy's "civil discourse".
His main interest was in defining "what is the human person". He emphasized that the human person is more than his physical or biological make-up. There is something unique and special about the human person , and yet, the basic needs of humans are universal. When the young emergent generation does not get their needs met, there is long-term damage affecting society at large. He was not too optimistic about the future, as it looks today, but emphasized that sociologists study what is, and do not pretend to make predictions.
Dr. Smith ascribes change through religion, if the religion is taken seriously and is distinct from the American consumer culture. He also thought that "at risk kids" needed adult mentors to give them a sense of being cared for, otherwise, their success would be limited. And he ventured to suggest a 'family forum' type of ministry program in churches, where the whole family was "formed".
He expressed concern for our future, if society continues along the same course it has for the last number of years.
All in all, he seemed to have done his 'homework" and the questions and answers were thoughtful.
My personal critique validates most of his claims, except his view on religion. He doesn't seem to suggest any reason why American religion has turned to consumerism, other than prosperity.
Prosperity has been looked upon in Marxist ideology as "unfairness" and "inequality", which has been condemned as indulgent and irresponsible in regards to the larger world, which is against "universal brotherhood"and "love of neighbor". Isn't there more to loving someone than meeting their material needs? There are many children whose material needs are more than met, but their emotional needs lie untouched by any significant other.
Consumerism is the mantra of the Obama adminstration. The materialist is guilty of materialism in his ideological commitments, and yet, he accuses the Christian church of materialsim. There is no getting around the fact that one's ideological commitments drive what defines one's values, without understanidng complexity of the issues involved.
And he doesn't give any rationale for religion in the first place. Is religion a description for "community"? Is community also the "only value" that post-moderns think is good?
Religion can be just a destructive as constructive, and Dr. Smith acknowledged that this was a prevalant view in today's climate, where religion defines the cultural wars.
Religion is diminishing in the West, should we be concerned, as religion was the trascriber of social norms? Today, there seem to be little to form a unifying factor, other than church affliation.
In conclusion, Dr Smith did a great job in analyzing our society and suggesting alternative ways of addressing it's ills. We should applaud his noble effort.
Thanks, Dr. Smith.
Dr. Smith has widely studied and viewed American society from many aspects; history, culture, religion, psychology, modernity, and social structures. He said that the emerging adult generation (ages 18-29) are marrying 5 years later, experiencing many kinds of relationships and experimenting with different lifestyles, before settling down and taking responsibility. He thinks that this is due to a 'post industrial" society, where work is not as valued as leisure, the prevalance of birth control, and alternate living arrangements and parents supporting adult children into their 20's. He finds that the adult culture is directly responsible for the environment that the children acclimate to. So, parents are ultimately responsible for their children and how they succeed.
Religion is not influencing this age group as it had in the past. And families in general are not experiencing a serious commitment to religion, as evangelical religion is infilterated by consumerism and "watered-down" commitment.
When asked how he defined religion, he acknowledged that this was a big question in many disciplines, but that he was talking about the practice of a certain or specific religion or denomination. And he suggested that the differences in our culture, breed tolerance, which was a good thing. He spoke against having an extreme view in regards to "truth" and convictions. He said that there was a third and "better way" that promotes democracy's "civil discourse".
His main interest was in defining "what is the human person". He emphasized that the human person is more than his physical or biological make-up. There is something unique and special about the human person , and yet, the basic needs of humans are universal. When the young emergent generation does not get their needs met, there is long-term damage affecting society at large. He was not too optimistic about the future, as it looks today, but emphasized that sociologists study what is, and do not pretend to make predictions.
Dr. Smith ascribes change through religion, if the religion is taken seriously and is distinct from the American consumer culture. He also thought that "at risk kids" needed adult mentors to give them a sense of being cared for, otherwise, their success would be limited. And he ventured to suggest a 'family forum' type of ministry program in churches, where the whole family was "formed".
He expressed concern for our future, if society continues along the same course it has for the last number of years.
All in all, he seemed to have done his 'homework" and the questions and answers were thoughtful.
My personal critique validates most of his claims, except his view on religion. He doesn't seem to suggest any reason why American religion has turned to consumerism, other than prosperity.
Prosperity has been looked upon in Marxist ideology as "unfairness" and "inequality", which has been condemned as indulgent and irresponsible in regards to the larger world, which is against "universal brotherhood"and "love of neighbor". Isn't there more to loving someone than meeting their material needs? There are many children whose material needs are more than met, but their emotional needs lie untouched by any significant other.
Consumerism is the mantra of the Obama adminstration. The materialist is guilty of materialism in his ideological commitments, and yet, he accuses the Christian church of materialsim. There is no getting around the fact that one's ideological commitments drive what defines one's values, without understanidng complexity of the issues involved.
And he doesn't give any rationale for religion in the first place. Is religion a description for "community"? Is community also the "only value" that post-moderns think is good?
Religion can be just a destructive as constructive, and Dr. Smith acknowledged that this was a prevalant view in today's climate, where religion defines the cultural wars.
Religion is diminishing in the West, should we be concerned, as religion was the trascriber of social norms? Today, there seem to be little to form a unifying factor, other than church affliation.
In conclusion, Dr Smith did a great job in analyzing our society and suggesting alternative ways of addressing it's ills. We should applaud his noble effort.
Thanks, Dr. Smith.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Faith Without Reason, A Disaster Waiting to Happen
The world we live in is a complex one, where plans do not play out as we planned. Humans are "free moral agents" and sometimes they use their agency to circumvent our lives. This is why America has laws that define what is appropriate behavior. Justice is defined by the "rule of law". But, what of differences in defining what law is? What is law based on? And Why?
These questions are things that are not all solved and certainly not agree upon. This is why in America we have an open discourse about how to 'live our lives" in an ordered fashion, without circumventing the freedom of others.
And what of social change and progress, revolutions and reform? How are these seen in the mix of appropriate behavior? When do we revolutionize or reform?
Social change and progress has defined the American way of life since our country's founding. Our Founding Fathers beleived and understood that freedom of religious conviction and conscience was to be affirmed, but not supported in the rules of governing. Otherwise, they would be in for religious terminology and relgious wars over things that cannot be resolved, as these are not empirically proven, but "faith facts".
Our pastor has been preaching on the faith of Abraham and the promise that followed. His emphasis it seemed today, was anti-cultural. He understands Abraham's use of "Hagar", as a cultural means of attaining "the promise" of a seed, which was to prosper every nation.
The anti-cultrual view is the traditional view of "Jesus as the Promised Messiah". Christianity was known to be a disenfranchised religion. And Jesus was useful in mythologizing his life as a "moral example", at least in the Catholic view.
The Jews had understood themselves as representative of humanity because of their alien status. These knew themselves as the "people of God", because of the fulfilled promise to Abraham. At least this is the story line.
Americans have understood their identity as one of " many nations". The term "out of many one". But the opposite is just as true, out of one, many, as in Abraham's case.
Radical faith is a faith not based on or in reason, as it seeks to historicize the life of Christ. Colossians was read about Jesus being the exact representation of God and to not be deluded by human philosophy. Colossians was the Church's apology for Christ and the "gospel'. It is Tradition abolutized apart from reason. And it is to epitomize the Christian experience, which idealizes reality apart from the 'real world' of politics. This is a hard sell to rational people.
The Old Testament Scripture was read which encouraged circumcision. The attempt, it seemed was to make a defense for the Church's stance on the "heart". The heart is the focus of holiness messages. (I'm sure Hebrews is not far behind, in this way of thinking.) Holiness people believe they have a mandate to "form" others in their image of God.
The Church is duty bound to "make disciples". which is at the costs of life and limb, because these believe that there really is a personal God, that answers prayer and that there really is a heaven and hell. These are Christian gnostics which believe that one is saved by their knowledge of the "gospel".
Salvation does happen to these but it is a "illusion" of "hope" and not real hope in a real world. It is Platonized ideology that hides behind Christian word,s, "Worldview" and forms of behavior. This is just as much a culture, as any other. And evangelical culture can be completely disconnected to reality, as their faith understanding is totally caught up in the tradition's (or denominational) understanding of the biblical text.
Faith apart from reason is misguided zealousness, and enthusiasm. This zealousness and enthusiasm is not based on reasoned thinking and study but on emotional reaction and response to cultural beliefs, which have not been analyzed appropriately.
It is only the American evangelicals that are so bent on defining Tradition apart from reason. And because a few nations that are tribalistic in mentality have responded emotionally, these believe that a revival of God has been "sent". And this re-inforces their "cause" of "winning the lost', which they believe is a supernaturalistic covenant with a personal God. This is Calvinistic undestanding of a covenantal theology.
These questions are things that are not all solved and certainly not agree upon. This is why in America we have an open discourse about how to 'live our lives" in an ordered fashion, without circumventing the freedom of others.
And what of social change and progress, revolutions and reform? How are these seen in the mix of appropriate behavior? When do we revolutionize or reform?
Social change and progress has defined the American way of life since our country's founding. Our Founding Fathers beleived and understood that freedom of religious conviction and conscience was to be affirmed, but not supported in the rules of governing. Otherwise, they would be in for religious terminology and relgious wars over things that cannot be resolved, as these are not empirically proven, but "faith facts".
Our pastor has been preaching on the faith of Abraham and the promise that followed. His emphasis it seemed today, was anti-cultural. He understands Abraham's use of "Hagar", as a cultural means of attaining "the promise" of a seed, which was to prosper every nation.
The anti-cultrual view is the traditional view of "Jesus as the Promised Messiah". Christianity was known to be a disenfranchised religion. And Jesus was useful in mythologizing his life as a "moral example", at least in the Catholic view.
The Jews had understood themselves as representative of humanity because of their alien status. These knew themselves as the "people of God", because of the fulfilled promise to Abraham. At least this is the story line.
Americans have understood their identity as one of " many nations". The term "out of many one". But the opposite is just as true, out of one, many, as in Abraham's case.
Radical faith is a faith not based on or in reason, as it seeks to historicize the life of Christ. Colossians was read about Jesus being the exact representation of God and to not be deluded by human philosophy. Colossians was the Church's apology for Christ and the "gospel'. It is Tradition abolutized apart from reason. And it is to epitomize the Christian experience, which idealizes reality apart from the 'real world' of politics. This is a hard sell to rational people.
The Old Testament Scripture was read which encouraged circumcision. The attempt, it seemed was to make a defense for the Church's stance on the "heart". The heart is the focus of holiness messages. (I'm sure Hebrews is not far behind, in this way of thinking.) Holiness people believe they have a mandate to "form" others in their image of God.
The Church is duty bound to "make disciples". which is at the costs of life and limb, because these believe that there really is a personal God, that answers prayer and that there really is a heaven and hell. These are Christian gnostics which believe that one is saved by their knowledge of the "gospel".
Salvation does happen to these but it is a "illusion" of "hope" and not real hope in a real world. It is Platonized ideology that hides behind Christian word,s, "Worldview" and forms of behavior. This is just as much a culture, as any other. And evangelical culture can be completely disconnected to reality, as their faith understanding is totally caught up in the tradition's (or denominational) understanding of the biblical text.
Faith apart from reason is misguided zealousness, and enthusiasm. This zealousness and enthusiasm is not based on reasoned thinking and study but on emotional reaction and response to cultural beliefs, which have not been analyzed appropriately.
It is only the American evangelicals that are so bent on defining Tradition apart from reason. And because a few nations that are tribalistic in mentality have responded emotionally, these believe that a revival of God has been "sent". And this re-inforces their "cause" of "winning the lost', which they believe is a supernaturalistic covenant with a personal God. This is Calvinistic undestanding of a covenantal theology.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Why the Jews?
Sunday I was listening to a classical piece that reminds me of the Jewish plight under the Nazis. Why has the West identified with the Jews?
The Jews have become symbolic to our identity. Our identity is rooted in freedom under law. We, in America, are a people because we believe in freedoms of all kinds. We are not a people identified with a religion, a monarch, or an ideology. This leaves the individual at liberty to choose his own way of life, as long as it does not interfere with the laws that provide for our security. Our solidarity is only based on these freedoms and Americans don't have a strong "cultural identity" unless freedom is challenged.
Myths have been useful for identification. Stories are told to children and children identify with the hero or herorine in the story. They dream of rescue, dreams and hopes coming true. These are basic to the human heart.
In America, we have benefited by these basic human desires of "becoming all we can". Hollywood is known worldwide to transmit these cultural values.
The "Jews" are symbolic for all human rights and many Jews today are humanists because of their story of struggle to attain what the human heart has always longed for, Freedom.
The Jews have become symbolic to our identity. Our identity is rooted in freedom under law. We, in America, are a people because we believe in freedoms of all kinds. We are not a people identified with a religion, a monarch, or an ideology. This leaves the individual at liberty to choose his own way of life, as long as it does not interfere with the laws that provide for our security. Our solidarity is only based on these freedoms and Americans don't have a strong "cultural identity" unless freedom is challenged.
Myths have been useful for identification. Stories are told to children and children identify with the hero or herorine in the story. They dream of rescue, dreams and hopes coming true. These are basic to the human heart.
In America, we have benefited by these basic human desires of "becoming all we can". Hollywood is known worldwide to transmit these cultural values.
The "Jews" are symbolic for all human rights and many Jews today are humanists because of their story of struggle to attain what the human heart has always longed for, Freedom.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Equal
Our thinking is influenced by many factors. What we are exposed to, what interests us, and what values are of most importance influence how we understand and 'put together' our realities. These underlying issues also affect and influence what we choose to read, and educate ourselves and how we understand this information within the context of other understandings in our "world" (reality). So, thinking and one's understanding and commitment to one's values, is a life-long process. One should remain open to new information, as long as one lives.
I have many times underlined our "equal before law" value, here in America. But, the value of "equal", must also understand complementary. We do complement one another when we are open to discussion, dialogue, and defense of our opinions, commitments and values. All of us have something to bring to the 'table" for the whole of society and its betterment.
This got me thinking about marriage. Marriage is a social contract between two people, who decide to commit to one another and share their lives. The religious like to term the agreement as "covenant", as they view the commitment as "an agreement before God", while secularists like to affirm the voluntary nature of the "contract" and its dissolvability. We can agree to disagree about the definitions and understanding of what marriage is about.
But, what should be of value and importance is what constitutes the "best" for society? This is where the social sciences, not just religious convictions, help us to form a better "world". We should listen to what social science has to say, so that we will not be boondoggling our future as a society. Religion can have a voice, if they remain open, otherwise, they will be regulated to the "corner" where they wear a "dunce hat" and the "secularists" will dismiss them as irrelavant.
Religion is equal in the sense of "having a voice". But, it should not remain shrill, angry, prejuidiced, dismissive, condescending, certain, or arrogant. All of us have an opportunity to bring an enlargment of understanding if we agree to agree where we can, change what we see needs changing, and agreeing to disagree where we can't come to resolutions. This way our society, and culture at large can be what the Founders framed for us, "a unified diversity".
I have many times underlined our "equal before law" value, here in America. But, the value of "equal", must also understand complementary. We do complement one another when we are open to discussion, dialogue, and defense of our opinions, commitments and values. All of us have something to bring to the 'table" for the whole of society and its betterment.
This got me thinking about marriage. Marriage is a social contract between two people, who decide to commit to one another and share their lives. The religious like to term the agreement as "covenant", as they view the commitment as "an agreement before God", while secularists like to affirm the voluntary nature of the "contract" and its dissolvability. We can agree to disagree about the definitions and understanding of what marriage is about.
But, what should be of value and importance is what constitutes the "best" for society? This is where the social sciences, not just religious convictions, help us to form a better "world". We should listen to what social science has to say, so that we will not be boondoggling our future as a society. Religion can have a voice, if they remain open, otherwise, they will be regulated to the "corner" where they wear a "dunce hat" and the "secularists" will dismiss them as irrelavant.
Religion is equal in the sense of "having a voice". But, it should not remain shrill, angry, prejuidiced, dismissive, condescending, certain, or arrogant. All of us have an opportunity to bring an enlargment of understanding if we agree to agree where we can, change what we see needs changing, and agreeing to disagree where we can't come to resolutions. This way our society, and culture at large can be what the Founders framed for us, "a unified diversity".
Friday, April 3, 2009
Worldviews, Culture, and Questions
Man is a questioning animal. We seek to understand. And in thinking about how to organize my thoughts about questions concerning the "Ultimate", I started to understand why it is important to allow for diversity.
Our globalized and technologically connected "world" has exposed us like not other time in history, where we can know about differences in culture. But, while we are exposed to these differences, we are also challenged to bring about "unity" of some kind in our understanding of the economic realm, as this realm determines how our interconnectivity is to be managed for everyone's good.
We cannot live isolated, if our country wants to engage a larger world, which we must. But, my question is where do we draw or make distinctions about "the good"? We are a country that allows for diversity, but how is diversity allowed in a larger world, where diversity is not embraced, for fear of dissolving "culture"?
Culture is a defining characteristic of an environment. It maintains a sense of "solidarity". Our country's defining or solidifying "culture" is "individuality". The individual has grown and flourished in some respects in this free and open culture. But, freedom without responsibility has disadvantaged our culture from its moral "sense". We are committed to individuality at the expense of "solidarity".
So, in asking myself questions this morning, I found that while "we, the people" are the definition of the United States of America, "we, the people" lacks a solidifying "culture" to maintain a cultural identity. And this is where our politicians, as well as the individual citizen is indebted to our nation's past value of "liberty and justice for all", which is a universal value and should underline our nation's commitment to further human rights abroad.
Our globalized and technologically connected "world" has exposed us like not other time in history, where we can know about differences in culture. But, while we are exposed to these differences, we are also challenged to bring about "unity" of some kind in our understanding of the economic realm, as this realm determines how our interconnectivity is to be managed for everyone's good.
We cannot live isolated, if our country wants to engage a larger world, which we must. But, my question is where do we draw or make distinctions about "the good"? We are a country that allows for diversity, but how is diversity allowed in a larger world, where diversity is not embraced, for fear of dissolving "culture"?
Culture is a defining characteristic of an environment. It maintains a sense of "solidarity". Our country's defining or solidifying "culture" is "individuality". The individual has grown and flourished in some respects in this free and open culture. But, freedom without responsibility has disadvantaged our culture from its moral "sense". We are committed to individuality at the expense of "solidarity".
So, in asking myself questions this morning, I found that while "we, the people" are the definition of the United States of America, "we, the people" lacks a solidifying "culture" to maintain a cultural identity. And this is where our politicians, as well as the individual citizen is indebted to our nation's past value of "liberty and justice for all", which is a universal value and should underline our nation's commitment to further human rights abroad.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
In Answer to My Question....
This morning's entry was entitled "Is There Historical Christianity". In postmodernity, there has been an attempt to "actualize" Jesus' life, as radicalism of the text does. This is called "incarnation" in theological terms. It is bringing faith into action. This concern in scholarly and piestic circles has been the "disconnect" between faith and "works". As traditional Reformed formulas of understanding are based on faith "alone", disconnecting faith from 'real life", as piestic faith likes to "see" faith in action. Other believers have bought the "social gospel" as there is not holiness without social holiness in John Wesley's understanding. And still others think that the public and private domains need to connect because of the 'moral degeneracy that has affected Western culture.
The problem with historicizing the text into another's life, or legislating a narrow viewpoint is that it over-rides the value of that specific life for a 'worldview" or a specific moral example, which entails specific convictions and values. These cannot be universalized without doing injustice to another human life. So, where is faith and historicity in post-modernity?
Wherever faith resides it will be known by the life that is led. The problem is' another's life may differ from yours, because they are different people, with a different perspective, and different values. Such is cultural diversity. And faith is not about cultural distinctives, as faith accomodates to the culture itself. But, some suggest that faith should transform culture, as this is what faith is called to do and is what the "social gospel" is about.
That being said, Americans most of all need to lighten up on issues that drive some to ideological extremes. Moderation is a virtue. But, some think moderation is compromise, luke-warmness, and half-heartedness. But, I think that moderation shows respect and humility to reason, faith and others, as it values first and foremost freedom of the individual to have difference, and freedom of the individual before God.
The problem with historicizing the text into another's life, or legislating a narrow viewpoint is that it over-rides the value of that specific life for a 'worldview" or a specific moral example, which entails specific convictions and values. These cannot be universalized without doing injustice to another human life. So, where is faith and historicity in post-modernity?
Wherever faith resides it will be known by the life that is led. The problem is' another's life may differ from yours, because they are different people, with a different perspective, and different values. Such is cultural diversity. And faith is not about cultural distinctives, as faith accomodates to the culture itself. But, some suggest that faith should transform culture, as this is what faith is called to do and is what the "social gospel" is about.
That being said, Americans most of all need to lighten up on issues that drive some to ideological extremes. Moderation is a virtue. But, some think moderation is compromise, luke-warmness, and half-heartedness. But, I think that moderation shows respect and humility to reason, faith and others, as it values first and foremost freedom of the individual to have difference, and freedom of the individual before God.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Richard Beck's Monsters and Hospitality and World Affairs
Richard Beck's "Experimental Theology" blog is an interesting blog site by a Christian psychologist. He has recently been talking about "monsters and hospitality". He identifies our psychological responses/reactions to these monsters, as a projection of self. This morning's report on the news made me wonder about this theory's practicality, when it comes to world affairs.
Prejuidice is the result of an "us/them" dichotomous mind-set. Social psychologists understand the dynamics that lead to humanitarian disasters, like genocide. Although humanitarians may desire to break down the walls of these identifiying barriers to "commonality", these identifiers are a necessary boundary line that defines "self" and "other". "Monster" is a term that Beck identifies as a "them", less than human label. Without identifiers we cannot discriminate or think, make decisions, as we must make judgments when we determine a course of action, which demands that we make distinctions. Multiculturalism leads to a non-discriminatory mind-set.
Today's news, as well as recent news, has made me wonder about the wisdom of this type of thinking. Russia is now expected to locate bombers in Cuba and Venezuela. Cuba is 80 miles from American shores. What are the reasons? Are we the "monster" and why?
Just last week, Great Britain's prime minister, George Brown, came to meet with our President. Great Britian is one of the closest allies to America. The usual dinner meeting as couples did not occur and a statue of Winston Churchill, a hopitable gesture, was sent back to Great Britian. I do not understand why this action occurred.
In Beck's terms, how are we to not believe in monsters in this world. We must, if we don't want the annihlation of our identifying factors. I think America's identifying factors are worthy ones, but that doesn't mean that some in our system have abused them. Americans, for the most part, are a generous, hospitable, and friendly people. Other nationalities may see us as arrogant, opinionated, rude, crude and naive.
Our seeming arrogance and opinionatedness, is just what our culture allows and condones in our "freedom of speech" and our individual freedoms. We speak our minds, but we also welcome others to as well. Our seeming rudeness is just our lack of sensitivity to a difference in culture, as we, for the most part, are allowed individuality within our culture, so what is a traditional "manner" is not even on the 'radar" of an American. And our naivete' is only because we believe in the American Dream that all men can attain and meet their highest potential, so we are optimist, for the most part. We have a 'can do attitude".
As I defend our cultural misconceptions, I do not deny that we Americans need to understand others a little better, as we don't get "world news" for the most part. And our nation's largness and diversity lends itself to belly gazing without regard for diversity abroad. So, to those whose traditions have been offended, tolerance is a value that could benefit you and your country, as graciousness is about tolerance. And we need graceousness and tolerance to live in this world.
Prejuidice is the result of an "us/them" dichotomous mind-set. Social psychologists understand the dynamics that lead to humanitarian disasters, like genocide. Although humanitarians may desire to break down the walls of these identifiying barriers to "commonality", these identifiers are a necessary boundary line that defines "self" and "other". "Monster" is a term that Beck identifies as a "them", less than human label. Without identifiers we cannot discriminate or think, make decisions, as we must make judgments when we determine a course of action, which demands that we make distinctions. Multiculturalism leads to a non-discriminatory mind-set.
Today's news, as well as recent news, has made me wonder about the wisdom of this type of thinking. Russia is now expected to locate bombers in Cuba and Venezuela. Cuba is 80 miles from American shores. What are the reasons? Are we the "monster" and why?
Just last week, Great Britain's prime minister, George Brown, came to meet with our President. Great Britian is one of the closest allies to America. The usual dinner meeting as couples did not occur and a statue of Winston Churchill, a hopitable gesture, was sent back to Great Britian. I do not understand why this action occurred.
In Beck's terms, how are we to not believe in monsters in this world. We must, if we don't want the annihlation of our identifying factors. I think America's identifying factors are worthy ones, but that doesn't mean that some in our system have abused them. Americans, for the most part, are a generous, hospitable, and friendly people. Other nationalities may see us as arrogant, opinionated, rude, crude and naive.
Our seeming arrogance and opinionatedness, is just what our culture allows and condones in our "freedom of speech" and our individual freedoms. We speak our minds, but we also welcome others to as well. Our seeming rudeness is just our lack of sensitivity to a difference in culture, as we, for the most part, are allowed individuality within our culture, so what is a traditional "manner" is not even on the 'radar" of an American. And our naivete' is only because we believe in the American Dream that all men can attain and meet their highest potential, so we are optimist, for the most part. We have a 'can do attitude".
As I defend our cultural misconceptions, I do not deny that we Americans need to understand others a little better, as we don't get "world news" for the most part. And our nation's largness and diversity lends itself to belly gazing without regard for diversity abroad. So, to those whose traditions have been offended, tolerance is a value that could benefit you and your country, as graciousness is about tolerance. And we need graceousness and tolerance to live in this world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
