Men must exist with material goods to survive. Clothes, food and shelter are all a necessity to maintain an environment for human flourishing. But, is this all that provides for human flourishing? I don't think so.
I think that humans must have the freedom to pursue their dreams, which provides hope that their choices will not be undermined. This is what a free and open democratic system provides. But, there are those who want to use "morality to affirm the basic necessities, but limit or confine what or how an individual "should" live their lives in seeking their "hope for their futures". These are communists, as they believe that "moral government" is a government that functions to provide the basics, but limits personal choice and freedom to pursue one's destiny.
As a democratic representative Republic, we are prone to loose these freedoms we value. Alexander Tyler, a British historian warned:
"democracies cannot exist as a permanant form of government; they will only exist until the people find that they can vote money for themselves from the treasury and until the politicians find that they can distribute that money to buy votes and perpertuate themselves in power. Hence, democracies always collapse under weak fiscal policy to be followed by a dictatorship.".
I fear that we have come to this point, where our fiscal irresponsibility has "come calling". We are a nation in debt because we have over-indulged ourselves. Money or making money is not the problem, but greed and power are. And because we can't "go any further" in debt, America plays into the hands of another type of ideology, as the solution; communism.
Dimitri Mannilski said in the Lenin School for Political Warfare in the 1930's;
" War to the hilt between communism and capitalism is inevitable. Today, of course, we are not strong enought to attack. Our time will come in thirty or forty years. To win, we shall need the element of surprise. The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep. So we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace moverment on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends. As soon as their guard is down, we will smash them with our clenched fist."
How will communists gain such power over America? Leonid Brezhnev said in 1973; "Our aim is to gain control of the two great treasure houses on which the West depends; The energy treasure house of the Persian Gulf and the minerals treasure house of central and southern Africa".
But, communism is not the only enemy we "fight", we also fight Islam. Where in the world are communist regimes, political/theological ideologies holding sway and Islam is the main religion? Africa.
Black power is understood to be in "Liberation theology", which is communistic at its foundation. A classless society is not possible without a ruling class that "oversees". And dictators and elitist classes was not the foundation of our form of government. Amercia believed in a "balance of power" and a representative democratic republic. We have become what the British historian warned against, a nation that can "buy votes". There should be no special priviledge based on anything other than a person's hard work, self-governance, responsibility and his own choice. But, we are fast becoming the dictatorship that is the result of a "failed democracy".
How about term limits for Congress?
Showing posts with label American freedoms. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American freedoms. Show all posts
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Moral Development in the History of American Government and Society
Anyone who knows me either personally or from reading entries on this blog site, know that I have been thinking of faith, values, and government. Faith has many "colors", and even, shades and tones, within those "colors". This is why there must be a way to live together, a "one Nation under God, with liberty and justice for all". This is where our government's ideals of individual conscience, and religious freedom are values that are to be upheld in today's world. But, how did these understandings of government come about?
Norms in a particular society are the "ways" in which people are "supposed to bahave", there is an assumption that is based on "conditioning" through one's upbringing and the concurrance within the society itself. through relgious teaching or values Some traditional cultures that have not been "born into" the "modern" era, are still living within these particularized paradigms.
Social order is affirmed through various means of upholding the traditions' values and norms. Religion is a big influence in maintaining the social order and affirming behavioral standards.
In America, and the birth of the "modern era", tradition no longer held as much power over societal norms and values. Where society had lived within communal contexts, industrialization dissolved extended family ties and based societal norms on "social contract", "career advacement", and individualized reason. Society itself underwent a "moral shift and change that gave room for man's development, but also undermined man's need of social connection.
In Kohlbug's moral development, the traditional, societal, or "social order" stage of morality, was a "lower level" (conventional stage) than the higher developed 'social contract", or reasoned stage. The assumption is that the individual "self" and his reason was more highly developed, as it was based on our American "ideals" of social contract, the Constitution, which underwrote justice.
Instead of God, or an "elect" or a sacred priesthood that maintained a "social order", the individual and his use of reason was the basis of moral reasoning and maturity. Submission was to be voluntary and not demanded or imposed from the outside, as in authoritarian regimes (political or religious). Our form of government valued a liberal government that upheld individual conscience, where it concerned religious conviction.
Freedom of individual conscience was the "watchword" for the social order and structuring of the Constitution. Religion was given a" seat in the bus", but was not to head the bus's direction, as the Constitution separated Church and State for good reason. All men, no matter the religious affiliation, or none, were created equal with certian inalienable rights. These "rights" were not to be provided by government, but protected by government. Man was assured the freedom to pursue his own life's goals and purposes. America was a free society based on reason and conscience.
I find that American government has left its Founder's rationale of individual liberty, by socializing that liberty. American government cannot garuantee equality of outcomes, but it attempts to do so with social programs that inhibit personal initiative. A limited government has grown to become a ravenous beast that preys upon the people's taxes to sustain the government's purposes of provision, instead of providing protection of rights.
American people of the past had a duty to "god and country" because of their gratitude for the liberty that the government protected. Now, the ones provided for have little incentive and intiative, while those who are taxed beyond their voluntary choice feel resentful of government's intrusion on private property. Private property was a pivotal issue of individual liberty, as man worked and earned his due wage, as slavery and servitude was outlawed.
Our country was founded on the principle of religious freedom and individual rights. The two underwrites the indivduality that our society values and promotes the best environment for human flourishing.
The problem of late in American government is that whenever the law is interpreted by the judicial branch to protect the interests of the government (executive branch), when the executive branch appoints the judges on the Supreme Court, we have a conflict of interests within the government's structure. Balance of power and acccountability was what the Founder's sought to maintain, not to benefit the government, but to protect individual liberties.
We are a people, who are committed to "freedom and justice for all", but if justice is not done at home, we cannot with moral integrity grant it outside of home.
Norms in a particular society are the "ways" in which people are "supposed to bahave", there is an assumption that is based on "conditioning" through one's upbringing and the concurrance within the society itself. through relgious teaching or values Some traditional cultures that have not been "born into" the "modern" era, are still living within these particularized paradigms.
Social order is affirmed through various means of upholding the traditions' values and norms. Religion is a big influence in maintaining the social order and affirming behavioral standards.
In America, and the birth of the "modern era", tradition no longer held as much power over societal norms and values. Where society had lived within communal contexts, industrialization dissolved extended family ties and based societal norms on "social contract", "career advacement", and individualized reason. Society itself underwent a "moral shift and change that gave room for man's development, but also undermined man's need of social connection.
In Kohlbug's moral development, the traditional, societal, or "social order" stage of morality, was a "lower level" (conventional stage) than the higher developed 'social contract", or reasoned stage. The assumption is that the individual "self" and his reason was more highly developed, as it was based on our American "ideals" of social contract, the Constitution, which underwrote justice.
Instead of God, or an "elect" or a sacred priesthood that maintained a "social order", the individual and his use of reason was the basis of moral reasoning and maturity. Submission was to be voluntary and not demanded or imposed from the outside, as in authoritarian regimes (political or religious). Our form of government valued a liberal government that upheld individual conscience, where it concerned religious conviction.
Freedom of individual conscience was the "watchword" for the social order and structuring of the Constitution. Religion was given a" seat in the bus", but was not to head the bus's direction, as the Constitution separated Church and State for good reason. All men, no matter the religious affiliation, or none, were created equal with certian inalienable rights. These "rights" were not to be provided by government, but protected by government. Man was assured the freedom to pursue his own life's goals and purposes. America was a free society based on reason and conscience.
I find that American government has left its Founder's rationale of individual liberty, by socializing that liberty. American government cannot garuantee equality of outcomes, but it attempts to do so with social programs that inhibit personal initiative. A limited government has grown to become a ravenous beast that preys upon the people's taxes to sustain the government's purposes of provision, instead of providing protection of rights.
American people of the past had a duty to "god and country" because of their gratitude for the liberty that the government protected. Now, the ones provided for have little incentive and intiative, while those who are taxed beyond their voluntary choice feel resentful of government's intrusion on private property. Private property was a pivotal issue of individual liberty, as man worked and earned his due wage, as slavery and servitude was outlawed.
Our country was founded on the principle of religious freedom and individual rights. The two underwrites the indivduality that our society values and promotes the best environment for human flourishing.
The problem of late in American government is that whenever the law is interpreted by the judicial branch to protect the interests of the government (executive branch), when the executive branch appoints the judges on the Supreme Court, we have a conflict of interests within the government's structure. Balance of power and acccountability was what the Founder's sought to maintain, not to benefit the government, but to protect individual liberties.
We are a people, who are committed to "freedom and justice for all", but if justice is not done at home, we cannot with moral integrity grant it outside of home.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Two Sides to the Human Heart
Freedom and Justice are two desires built within each human heart. Wars and conflict happen because these two desires are at odds with each other within the heart and within social structures.
Freedom is the need to be. It is the individual seeking identity and expression. Freedom allows creativity. Freedom is found within American ideals and our Bill of Rights.
Whereas freedom is found in individuality, justice is found within the social. Justice cannot exist apart from relationship. Justice is found within our American form of government in its laws. Because our form of government affirms both liberty and justice, we are a nation of diverse opinions, and commitments.
Human rights and ethics itself is based on an understanding of justice. And sometimes justice is not understood within the confines of law, if laws are unjust means of attaining desires that subvert another's freedom. Freedom is primary, if the individual matters at all, which is what Christians and Americans affirm and believe.
Freedom is the need to be. It is the individual seeking identity and expression. Freedom allows creativity. Freedom is found within American ideals and our Bill of Rights.
Whereas freedom is found in individuality, justice is found within the social. Justice cannot exist apart from relationship. Justice is found within our American form of government in its laws. Because our form of government affirms both liberty and justice, we are a nation of diverse opinions, and commitments.
Human rights and ethics itself is based on an understanding of justice. And sometimes justice is not understood within the confines of law, if laws are unjust means of attaining desires that subvert another's freedom. Freedom is primary, if the individual matters at all, which is what Christians and Americans affirm and believe.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Two Sides to the "Golden Rule"
All religious traditions have ethical concerns and many hold to a view of what the Christian understands to be the "Golden Rule". But, how one understands the "Golden Rule" is as various as the people who acknowledge it.
People hold to different values, depending on their cultural contexts and the values that are most important. In cultures where there is no freedom, whether in communist or traditionlist, the cultural climate is determined by government officials, or sacred texts. These culture's do not have "free reign" to understand the "Golden Rule" because what is done is "duty bound" to tradition or governmental authority.
In the West, we hold to individual's freedoms, where the individual can choose his "way of life" depending on the values that are most important. The "Golden Rule" could be a value of two individuals, but look different in how that is applied in one's life. This is because in politically free societies, the individual can choose how to prioritize their values. If a Republican believes in the free market, then he would affirm that value to another and argue for its "value" in regards to others; while a Democrat would argue for the "greater good", more a sense of social responsibility. While one values, individuality, choice in economic decisions, the other values a collective conscience, in regards to those same choices. Which view is more representative of the "Golden Rule"? Freedom or Responsibility? We are free to choose and that is what is great about our nation and culture. The important thing is "are we doing what we would want to be done to us"?
People hold to different values, depending on their cultural contexts and the values that are most important. In cultures where there is no freedom, whether in communist or traditionlist, the cultural climate is determined by government officials, or sacred texts. These culture's do not have "free reign" to understand the "Golden Rule" because what is done is "duty bound" to tradition or governmental authority.
In the West, we hold to individual's freedoms, where the individual can choose his "way of life" depending on the values that are most important. The "Golden Rule" could be a value of two individuals, but look different in how that is applied in one's life. This is because in politically free societies, the individual can choose how to prioritize their values. If a Republican believes in the free market, then he would affirm that value to another and argue for its "value" in regards to others; while a Democrat would argue for the "greater good", more a sense of social responsibility. While one values, individuality, choice in economic decisions, the other values a collective conscience, in regards to those same choices. Which view is more representative of the "Golden Rule"? Freedom or Responsibility? We are free to choose and that is what is great about our nation and culture. The important thing is "are we doing what we would want to be done to us"?
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
After Obama's Speech and It's Impact on Us All
Many have snidely remarked that Obama's inaugeration is like the "coming kingdom". They have sneered at his being the "messiah". But, after watching the inaugeration and thinking about my values, opinions, beliefs, ideals, and "heart", I believe that our nation, indeed, is the greatest nation on earth.
I don't mean to sound elitist, as it is exactly the opposite. We are a people! And yet, we are individuals! "I have a dream", can be all of our dreams....and our hope for a better future!
The real world is "made up" of ideals, which represent the values, which make our country GREAT....Our political system is great because we do not believe in an elite form of government, whether through power politics of totaltaliraian regimes, or familial, or caste systems! We value all individuals, as created with inaleinable rights! I love our country, as we all do, for these values, freedoms and rights.
I don't mean to sound elitist, as it is exactly the opposite. We are a people! And yet, we are individuals! "I have a dream", can be all of our dreams....and our hope for a better future!
The real world is "made up" of ideals, which represent the values, which make our country GREAT....Our political system is great because we do not believe in an elite form of government, whether through power politics of totaltaliraian regimes, or familial, or caste systems! We value all individuals, as created with inaleinable rights! I love our country, as we all do, for these values, freedoms and rights.
I'd Rather Be...
I'd rather be an American today, than anything on earth. America's "ideals" are going to be demonstrated before the world, in Obama's inaugeration.
His inaugeration stands for all the "ideals" I value most, equality, opportunity, hope, and freedom. Mine is not the only heart that is moved by these "ideals". These ideals are what humans are about because humans are made to be free, to experience justice, and to have the hope of opportunity and the freedom of equality....No wonder someone on NPR said the other day that America represents a higher moral order than any other nation!
I'd rather be an American today than be a part of any other country or religion, because America does not discriminate based upon the specificities of one's race or religion. That is what I want to be and be like, because only leaders who represent these values are ones that should be followed!
His inaugeration stands for all the "ideals" I value most, equality, opportunity, hope, and freedom. Mine is not the only heart that is moved by these "ideals". These ideals are what humans are about because humans are made to be free, to experience justice, and to have the hope of opportunity and the freedom of equality....No wonder someone on NPR said the other day that America represents a higher moral order than any other nation!
I'd rather be an American today than be a part of any other country or religion, because America does not discriminate based upon the specificities of one's race or religion. That is what I want to be and be like, because only leaders who represent these values are ones that should be followed!
Friday, January 16, 2009
Kant's Moral Ethic and Categorical Imperative
Kant said that a person should never be used as a means. I agree. He also was known for his Catergorical Imperative, which states that we act in a way that we wish would become a universal. This is an important universal, as it is a re-phrasing of "the Golden Rule". And this is where I think atheists have a point in theodicity, as how can one understand an evil that uses another human being for "great ends"? Governments or those in power are the ones who are responsible for creating environments that are best for the individual, so that he is not used as a means, and can choose to act as the Categorical Imperative would have. The problem with the Categorical Imperative is twofold. Where the universal standard of treating another like we would want to be treated, there remains the problem of differences in preferences. Some like hones forthright conversation, while others prefer insinuation, and a gentle nudge in the right direction. How does one treat another in a universal way, when it boils down to individual preferences?
Some who argue for the position of the Categorical Imperative are pacifists, since they believe that all individuals are important, they think that conflict should be resolved only through diplomatic means. I don't believe that diplomacy is open in closed countries, where there is little or no outside influence, because of their prejuidice about the outside world or their lack of information. The military are useful to protect our interests so that our freedoms can be maintained, as apart from these freedoms, we are doomed to fall into the hands of tyrannical leaders, whose purposes are not for the individual, but for their own misconcieved ends. And these ends use any means for their purposes, even individuals.
Some would claim that "God is the Blessed Controller" of all things and passively submit to injustice, while others seek to give out this "advice" so their control is maintained, or because they fear for their life. There is no universal in these situations, but in our free society, we must stand for justice. Rosa Parks, Gandhi would have never accomplished their ends if it had not been for standing for justice, whether the personal right of a seat on a bus, or discrimnation. Justice never just happens, but is activism for social, political, moral "causes". This is why Martin Luther King, Jr. , whose birthday we celebrate, said that "where injustice was allowed anywhere, it was an enemy to justice everywhere". It is not wrong to seek justice, as this is merciful to those who live under injustice, and where unjust governments and rulers rule, others suffer.
Some who argue for the position of the Categorical Imperative are pacifists, since they believe that all individuals are important, they think that conflict should be resolved only through diplomatic means. I don't believe that diplomacy is open in closed countries, where there is little or no outside influence, because of their prejuidice about the outside world or their lack of information. The military are useful to protect our interests so that our freedoms can be maintained, as apart from these freedoms, we are doomed to fall into the hands of tyrannical leaders, whose purposes are not for the individual, but for their own misconcieved ends. And these ends use any means for their purposes, even individuals.
Some would claim that "God is the Blessed Controller" of all things and passively submit to injustice, while others seek to give out this "advice" so their control is maintained, or because they fear for their life. There is no universal in these situations, but in our free society, we must stand for justice. Rosa Parks, Gandhi would have never accomplished their ends if it had not been for standing for justice, whether the personal right of a seat on a bus, or discrimnation. Justice never just happens, but is activism for social, political, moral "causes". This is why Martin Luther King, Jr. , whose birthday we celebrate, said that "where injustice was allowed anywhere, it was an enemy to justice everywhere". It is not wrong to seek justice, as this is merciful to those who live under injustice, and where unjust governments and rulers rule, others suffer.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
A "Graced" Theology
I have decided not to be a Christian, but a human. Being human is our first priority, as humans. It is about acceptance of limitations, inabilities, and potentialities, as well. Previenient grace covers all of it, for all of life is graced. That means that all knowledge, and all of life is graced. But, what about suffering? Suffering is about injustice.
We are grace bearers to another. Grace is gifting another's life where it is limited, disabled or hindered. It is a life of humanism.
Just recently, while attending the American History museum in D.C., my husband and I listened to a young African American talk about the Greensboro incidence. The Greensboro incidence was a sit in for civil rights in the 60's and it was done at a Woolworth counter in the name of justice. Justice had not been served to these four African Americans, as they had not been served lunch. This was a lunch counter and the function of a lunch counter was to serve lunch to humans! But, these African Americans had grown up without having the equality of sitting at the lunch counter. Why? Because, they were less than human, as the color of their skin disenfranchised them from the "white elite". As he talked and acted out the injustice, I cried. as I lived through this period in history in the South, as a white American. White Americans were the priviledged class who could choose where they wanted to sit, where they wanted to see a movie, and how they would live their lives, in general. It was freedom to be white, but "our" freedom limited African Americans in their freedom. So, we, Southerners, did not experience "freedom and justice for all"!
I was priviledged on both accounts of being a white in the South, but also, having the priviledge of having an African American "maid" raise me in my younger years. This African American's name was Elizabeth, and I played with her daughter, Geraldine. She was my friend. I didn't see color, although I lived in a "colorful' world. I only knew these African Americans as my friends. I once asked my mother, when I was inquiring about a mole on my body, if Geraldine was "one big mole all over"! Children do not make the distinctions that adults learn to do, and such is the "kingdom of God"....
I think the "kingdom of God" is more about being "human" than about any form of religion, and the ideological "commitments that go along with "religion"!
We are grace bearers to another. Grace is gifting another's life where it is limited, disabled or hindered. It is a life of humanism.
Just recently, while attending the American History museum in D.C., my husband and I listened to a young African American talk about the Greensboro incidence. The Greensboro incidence was a sit in for civil rights in the 60's and it was done at a Woolworth counter in the name of justice. Justice had not been served to these four African Americans, as they had not been served lunch. This was a lunch counter and the function of a lunch counter was to serve lunch to humans! But, these African Americans had grown up without having the equality of sitting at the lunch counter. Why? Because, they were less than human, as the color of their skin disenfranchised them from the "white elite". As he talked and acted out the injustice, I cried. as I lived through this period in history in the South, as a white American. White Americans were the priviledged class who could choose where they wanted to sit, where they wanted to see a movie, and how they would live their lives, in general. It was freedom to be white, but "our" freedom limited African Americans in their freedom. So, we, Southerners, did not experience "freedom and justice for all"!
I was priviledged on both accounts of being a white in the South, but also, having the priviledge of having an African American "maid" raise me in my younger years. This African American's name was Elizabeth, and I played with her daughter, Geraldine. She was my friend. I didn't see color, although I lived in a "colorful' world. I only knew these African Americans as my friends. I once asked my mother, when I was inquiring about a mole on my body, if Geraldine was "one big mole all over"! Children do not make the distinctions that adults learn to do, and such is the "kingdom of God"....
I think the "kingdom of God" is more about being "human" than about any form of religion, and the ideological "commitments that go along with "religion"!
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
I Have Decided
Christians have a song, 'I Have Decided to Follow Jesus".
I have decided that no one else will determine "me". I used to be submissive, and looking to emulate Christ in his humility, but not anymore. This is my revolution to passive resistance. No one can be loved truely unless they are truely themselves. So, I am not going to conform to a specified "ideal", or "pattern" of another's life. This is my life to be lived fully and freely. I will be, who I will be, and those who care to have a relationship with me will value whatever idiosyncrises they find. That does not mean that I don't value their input in my life, nor will I disregard their counse, nor that I will not, nor cannot change. But, it does mean that I am not going to seek to "be a Christian". I will be human, that is for sure. I will fail, cry, rant and rave. I will succeed, laugh and enjoy my life. I will laugh at myself as I don't have anything to protect. Image is not necessary. Hopefully, this will bless my family with a real person, who tries to love, attempts to mentor, and above all, chooses to accept them as human. This is walking in forgiveness, humility, delight in life's fullness, and a desire to learn and become, and be....who I am....for that is what God created in the first place! How about you?
As Paul said, I am who I am, by the grace of God....
I have decided that no one else will determine "me". I used to be submissive, and looking to emulate Christ in his humility, but not anymore. This is my revolution to passive resistance. No one can be loved truely unless they are truely themselves. So, I am not going to conform to a specified "ideal", or "pattern" of another's life. This is my life to be lived fully and freely. I will be, who I will be, and those who care to have a relationship with me will value whatever idiosyncrises they find. That does not mean that I don't value their input in my life, nor will I disregard their counse, nor that I will not, nor cannot change. But, it does mean that I am not going to seek to "be a Christian". I will be human, that is for sure. I will fail, cry, rant and rave. I will succeed, laugh and enjoy my life. I will laugh at myself as I don't have anything to protect. Image is not necessary. Hopefully, this will bless my family with a real person, who tries to love, attempts to mentor, and above all, chooses to accept them as human. This is walking in forgiveness, humility, delight in life's fullness, and a desire to learn and become, and be....who I am....for that is what God created in the first place! How about you?
As Paul said, I am who I am, by the grace of God....
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Development of the Individual Within Society
When I used to believe that evangelical inductive study was "truth", I understood that "context was king". Context meant what the text meant within the culture, and language of the given frame of "orginal meaning". Of course the context was understood with different textual "helps". I understood that there was diversity within the Church and understood many of the arguments which brought about separation or understandings of difference.
But, in postmodernity, there is a need to understand the human as made in God's image. What is a human being and how is one developed? This is a question that is not new, but is one that faces the Church in uncerstanding how people have come to understand their faith. In academic terms, this way of approaching the understanding of religion, is the psychology of religion paradigm.
Not only is the person's context to be understood, as this is what gives a person identification, but also, the person's way of interpreting, which is hard to define in America's diverse environment. Families are not built around tradition necessarily, as in the "old country". So, how does the psychologist understand someone else's faith? Some have said that it is not just cultural influence, but actual brain science, as neurobiology has many "new understandings" of what makes man, "man".
Experience is the everyday encounters with everything from what one reads, hears, but what one encounters through people and circumstances. I don't believe that man made in God's image will come to maturity without understanding themself as a separate individual, who understands that life is valued and valueable on many elements of "faith". How one defines faith depends on personal convictions and values.
Of course, some conservatives would find this problematic, as their belief that tradition is to continue to define truth, as any other way of thinking is idolatry or rebellion. I find that parenting has led me to believe otherwise. We support our children when they become adults, but helathy parenting wants them to grow into full responsible independent individuals. That does not mean that they disregard us as parent altogether, but that they only use our advice, as advice and don't feel compelled to believe as we do about any certain given area of conviction. I do not think that parents can take full responsibility for how their children turn out, as many factores influence and form the individual youg adult. We must, as parents, and teachers expose them to as amny opportunities as possible to broaden their world , so that they will be as free as possible from prejuidice and where they are biased, they understand and fully choose that bias.
This if the personal aspect of individual development. But, there is also, a moral responsibility toward our nation that is also an important value for the individual. I think that we live in a great nation, that is presently experiencing some challenges that we, the people, have been responsible for, but, these consequences are just the result of individuals seeking after their own interests at the expense of others. We cannot be a people without a moral responsibility and order that defends the values that we hold dearly, which is freedom and justice for ALL the people. If justice is compromised for those in places of power, then we will all suffer due to consequences that impinge upon our own freedoms. So, whenever anyone commits a crime, then there must be an understanding that we are morally responsible to hold the other to accountability. Justice maintains the structure that allows all of us to be "at peace" and seek our own interests within reason (reason being the consequences of not adhereing to law).
Terriorists are those who do not respect others in a just way. They seek to undermine our sense of security which is maintained by our laws. Therefore, it is imperative for us to hold these people to just laws and consequences that make them understand that the West will not allow disorder.
But, in postmodernity, there is a need to understand the human as made in God's image. What is a human being and how is one developed? This is a question that is not new, but is one that faces the Church in uncerstanding how people have come to understand their faith. In academic terms, this way of approaching the understanding of religion, is the psychology of religion paradigm.
Not only is the person's context to be understood, as this is what gives a person identification, but also, the person's way of interpreting, which is hard to define in America's diverse environment. Families are not built around tradition necessarily, as in the "old country". So, how does the psychologist understand someone else's faith? Some have said that it is not just cultural influence, but actual brain science, as neurobiology has many "new understandings" of what makes man, "man".
Experience is the everyday encounters with everything from what one reads, hears, but what one encounters through people and circumstances. I don't believe that man made in God's image will come to maturity without understanding themself as a separate individual, who understands that life is valued and valueable on many elements of "faith". How one defines faith depends on personal convictions and values.
Of course, some conservatives would find this problematic, as their belief that tradition is to continue to define truth, as any other way of thinking is idolatry or rebellion. I find that parenting has led me to believe otherwise. We support our children when they become adults, but helathy parenting wants them to grow into full responsible independent individuals. That does not mean that they disregard us as parent altogether, but that they only use our advice, as advice and don't feel compelled to believe as we do about any certain given area of conviction. I do not think that parents can take full responsibility for how their children turn out, as many factores influence and form the individual youg adult. We must, as parents, and teachers expose them to as amny opportunities as possible to broaden their world , so that they will be as free as possible from prejuidice and where they are biased, they understand and fully choose that bias.
This if the personal aspect of individual development. But, there is also, a moral responsibility toward our nation that is also an important value for the individual. I think that we live in a great nation, that is presently experiencing some challenges that we, the people, have been responsible for, but, these consequences are just the result of individuals seeking after their own interests at the expense of others. We cannot be a people without a moral responsibility and order that defends the values that we hold dearly, which is freedom and justice for ALL the people. If justice is compromised for those in places of power, then we will all suffer due to consequences that impinge upon our own freedoms. So, whenever anyone commits a crime, then there must be an understanding that we are morally responsible to hold the other to accountability. Justice maintains the structure that allows all of us to be "at peace" and seek our own interests within reason (reason being the consequences of not adhereing to law).
Terriorists are those who do not respect others in a just way. They seek to undermine our sense of security which is maintained by our laws. Therefore, it is imperative for us to hold these people to just laws and consequences that make them understand that the West will not allow disorder.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Why Do We Think Politics Changes?
Politics holds us to the reality that life in this world is built upon money, power, and position. Those of us who are priviledged to live in free societies are not as impacted by their leaders political positions. Or aren't we?
Politics, even in free societies, influence the future, because the decisions we make today have consequences. As Lord Acton said many years ago, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.". Do political leaders want accountability, or do they want to use legal language to dodge the responsibility they have for those who are dependent on their character, in honesty, forthrightness, transparency, loyalty, commitment, dedication, dependability, trustworthiness, etc.? Our freedoms are dependent on these qualities, because without them there will be a disregard of our interests for their own interests. This is the reason why the President on Inaugaration Day pledges to uphold the Constitution.
In our last election, we were promised change. But, we need to question what kind of change is necessary. The question facing our leadership is one of character. The Illonois governor is charged with unethical behavior and the Supreme Court has decided not to investigate charges that Obama's place of birth is in question. The Constitution is to be upheld by citizens born in the U.S. Our laws do not allow nepotism and political positioning. Just recently an Indiana county was charged with breaking these laws.
Why is it important that we support and uphold these laws? These laws protect us from a political "class", where everyone is doing "what comes naturally", which is primarily privileging themselves with favors, and paybacks. When this is the climate of our politics, then there is little representation, and a lot of "political class". And those on the "sidelines" pay the bill to support the "game"...
Politics, even in free societies, influence the future, because the decisions we make today have consequences. As Lord Acton said many years ago, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.". Do political leaders want accountability, or do they want to use legal language to dodge the responsibility they have for those who are dependent on their character, in honesty, forthrightness, transparency, loyalty, commitment, dedication, dependability, trustworthiness, etc.? Our freedoms are dependent on these qualities, because without them there will be a disregard of our interests for their own interests. This is the reason why the President on Inaugaration Day pledges to uphold the Constitution.
In our last election, we were promised change. But, we need to question what kind of change is necessary. The question facing our leadership is one of character. The Illonois governor is charged with unethical behavior and the Supreme Court has decided not to investigate charges that Obama's place of birth is in question. The Constitution is to be upheld by citizens born in the U.S. Our laws do not allow nepotism and political positioning. Just recently an Indiana county was charged with breaking these laws.
Why is it important that we support and uphold these laws? These laws protect us from a political "class", where everyone is doing "what comes naturally", which is primarily privileging themselves with favors, and paybacks. When this is the climate of our politics, then there is little representation, and a lot of "political class". And those on the "sidelines" pay the bill to support the "game"...
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Science and Religion, a Dichotomy?
Science is a journey of exploration, while religion is defined and confined. Science is open ended, where religion is closed and contained. Science reveals "god", where religion defines god!
Is this true? It depends on what avenue of science one is talking about. The natural sciences not only reveal our understanding of the natural world, but does it or can it reveal anything about the "moral world"? If Kant is right that categories exist in our mind, then can it be "proven" by neurobiological investigation? But, is the mind the same as the brain? How we construct our realities are unique, in that we are individuals, who not only have unique experiences, but we understand those same experiences differently! How is that?
C.S.Lewis became a Christian because he believed that all men were created with a sense of justice. He wrote a book about this in "Mere Christianity".
Kant believed that we should act in a way that we would want to be universal. It was his way of understanding the "Golden Rule". How are we to act in a world that does not function on the "Golden Rule", but on the principles of business models? Can the "world' function on "trust", when the world has different understandings of what is right, or good? How are we to bring about a universal understanding of what is right without undermining diversity?
Science does not tell us what is right, but what is. How do we put "what is" in a framework of "what is right"? Is there a universal framework?
I think the danger of separating the two realms, is disconnnecting the "ethical" from the "real". What is real to a human being is their personal reality, which are created by many variables. The "Golden Rule" would mean that we affirm their "reality", which is not a universal. What about "mental illness"? How do we affirm that reality without helping them out of that reality? And who is to gauge what is "normal behavior"? Many eccentrics have been geniuses, as history revealed later, just as many moral or religious reformers had impact in history, but at the time were ostracized. How are we to gauge and make our judgments?
Religion does not like to explore the world, but define the world. I find that this limits man's creative spirit. Creativity can not be boxed, defined, or manipulated, but it must be expressed. Each person is a creative spirit that needs to be freed to experience life, and express their giftedness in their own unique way.
Is this true? It depends on what avenue of science one is talking about. The natural sciences not only reveal our understanding of the natural world, but does it or can it reveal anything about the "moral world"? If Kant is right that categories exist in our mind, then can it be "proven" by neurobiological investigation? But, is the mind the same as the brain? How we construct our realities are unique, in that we are individuals, who not only have unique experiences, but we understand those same experiences differently! How is that?
C.S.Lewis became a Christian because he believed that all men were created with a sense of justice. He wrote a book about this in "Mere Christianity".
Kant believed that we should act in a way that we would want to be universal. It was his way of understanding the "Golden Rule". How are we to act in a world that does not function on the "Golden Rule", but on the principles of business models? Can the "world' function on "trust", when the world has different understandings of what is right, or good? How are we to bring about a universal understanding of what is right without undermining diversity?
Science does not tell us what is right, but what is. How do we put "what is" in a framework of "what is right"? Is there a universal framework?
I think the danger of separating the two realms, is disconnnecting the "ethical" from the "real". What is real to a human being is their personal reality, which are created by many variables. The "Golden Rule" would mean that we affirm their "reality", which is not a universal. What about "mental illness"? How do we affirm that reality without helping them out of that reality? And who is to gauge what is "normal behavior"? Many eccentrics have been geniuses, as history revealed later, just as many moral or religious reformers had impact in history, but at the time were ostracized. How are we to gauge and make our judgments?
Religion does not like to explore the world, but define the world. I find that this limits man's creative spirit. Creativity can not be boxed, defined, or manipulated, but it must be expressed. Each person is a creative spirit that needs to be freed to experience life, and express their giftedness in their own unique way.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Circumcision, Christianity, and Common Sense
I was told tonight by a scholar of "Lost Christianities" that Christian faith was rooted in Muslim faith and that someone from this time period would have felt more comfortable in a Mosque than a Western Church and that some of the practices, such as how they pray were much closer to Christian roots. While I understand that Jewish, Islamic and Christian roots are rooted in the Hebrew text, I do not adhere to this tradition's understanding of ethics...
In "Infidel", a Somalian woman talks about how she is circumcised and sewn up to prevent premarital intercourse. She has no pleasure within her marital sexual experience as she is torn and scared by the procedure! She cannot go outside without a male accompanying her. She recites all of her geneology for generations back, as this is her identity and tribal culture.
Phillip Jenkins, a religious studies professor, as well as historian of 20th century America, etc. from PennState, spoke on his new book, "Lost Christianities". His approach was solely a religious one and I was curious as he did not talk about colonialism or politics in general. Religious studies, of course, does not necessarily cover other subjects, but I find it very limiting and narrow to view a tradition even within its own history without expanding that udnerstanding beyond the tradition. Traditions do create a "world", but a limited one....
Christianity is rooted in Judiasm and was a peasant movement. In understanding group identity and how these identities form, Christianity became a separate identity under the writers of Pauls letters and was furthered through the testimony of the scribes who wrote the Gospels. It was an attempt to create a special identity within a God framework, as Judiasm had in the past. Those who have been discriminated, the "outsider", are those who are likely to create their own story, rather than identify with those who persecute or oppose them. Was this what Dr. Jenkins purposes happened to these people under the persecution of Constantine and the Crusades? The empire persecutes the underdogs and the underdogs create a way to survive under persecution. It is an interesting thought/theory. I don't know enough about the history and have not read Dr. Jenkins book.
I do know that Hirshi Ayraan Ali is an atheist because of her abuse. Her identity is not found within a God framework, but a political one. I don't find that this is wrong, as we all desire to survive in the best environment possible, which is one that is free of oppression, whether it be religious, or political. Common sense tells us that we choose freedom for our own self-interest, as well as the interests of others! What better framework than our American identity?
In "Infidel", a Somalian woman talks about how she is circumcised and sewn up to prevent premarital intercourse. She has no pleasure within her marital sexual experience as she is torn and scared by the procedure! She cannot go outside without a male accompanying her. She recites all of her geneology for generations back, as this is her identity and tribal culture.
Phillip Jenkins, a religious studies professor, as well as historian of 20th century America, etc. from PennState, spoke on his new book, "Lost Christianities". His approach was solely a religious one and I was curious as he did not talk about colonialism or politics in general. Religious studies, of course, does not necessarily cover other subjects, but I find it very limiting and narrow to view a tradition even within its own history without expanding that udnerstanding beyond the tradition. Traditions do create a "world", but a limited one....
Christianity is rooted in Judiasm and was a peasant movement. In understanding group identity and how these identities form, Christianity became a separate identity under the writers of Pauls letters and was furthered through the testimony of the scribes who wrote the Gospels. It was an attempt to create a special identity within a God framework, as Judiasm had in the past. Those who have been discriminated, the "outsider", are those who are likely to create their own story, rather than identify with those who persecute or oppose them. Was this what Dr. Jenkins purposes happened to these people under the persecution of Constantine and the Crusades? The empire persecutes the underdogs and the underdogs create a way to survive under persecution. It is an interesting thought/theory. I don't know enough about the history and have not read Dr. Jenkins book.
I do know that Hirshi Ayraan Ali is an atheist because of her abuse. Her identity is not found within a God framework, but a political one. I don't find that this is wrong, as we all desire to survive in the best environment possible, which is one that is free of oppression, whether it be religious, or political. Common sense tells us that we choose freedom for our own self-interest, as well as the interests of others! What better framework than our American identity?
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Truth and Values
I came upon an article that discussed the interface of truth claims based on history and value claims based on personal conviction. The article sounded as if there was no interface, but two distinct realms, vying for affirmation. One starts with history's historical analysis and lays a foundation of True or False. The other lays claims to relativity of personal choice, conviction, and commitment. Which is true?
Is there really to be a separation in the two realms of "truth"? I don't think so. The Academy believes, and rightfully so, that the disciplines are the way to truth. This is the objective realm.
But, what about personal truth? These truth claims are also true, as this truth becomes a personal value system,. The individual develops within certain frameworks and his/her identity is formed by those "truths" of experience. While these personal identification factors are important, as they are tradition's values held within "culture", the academic understanding of "truth" is more important for humanity's sake, or the greater good.
The greater good is the public's good, which is the arena of political discourse, which should involve diversity of opinion. Opinions should be open to change, where evidence shows that it is better to "see" things another way. Change is hard for traditional understandings that maintain personal values. But, if these traditions are challenged along lines of objectivity or rationale, then there should be an openness to discussion and a tolerance for change, while at the same time, allowing others the right to choose another path. Cooperation with/in change can only be brought about with full disclosure to everyone involved, otherwise, there will always be "outsiders and insiders", which troubles the waters of change and hinders growth of understanding and acceptance.
In America's climate of diversity and tolerance, we do not have tradition tightly defined around cultural norms or values, as we value freedom of individual conscience. While conscience is formed within the frameworks of traditional social structures, America's government has protected civil rights at the expense of traditional values. Therein lies our cultural conflict, but, also our greatness. Because we value the individual conscience, even while the traditional social structures have undergone great stress and change, we, Americans are open to be educated. Education was what our Bill of Rights is about in allowing the Freedom of the Press, the Freedom of Assembly, the Freedom of Speech, ETC. We are a free nation, which should value civil discourse, which should include religious freedom and expression as well!
I think that American ideals are the great future for the Globe!
Is there really to be a separation in the two realms of "truth"? I don't think so. The Academy believes, and rightfully so, that the disciplines are the way to truth. This is the objective realm.
But, what about personal truth? These truth claims are also true, as this truth becomes a personal value system,. The individual develops within certain frameworks and his/her identity is formed by those "truths" of experience. While these personal identification factors are important, as they are tradition's values held within "culture", the academic understanding of "truth" is more important for humanity's sake, or the greater good.
The greater good is the public's good, which is the arena of political discourse, which should involve diversity of opinion. Opinions should be open to change, where evidence shows that it is better to "see" things another way. Change is hard for traditional understandings that maintain personal values. But, if these traditions are challenged along lines of objectivity or rationale, then there should be an openness to discussion and a tolerance for change, while at the same time, allowing others the right to choose another path. Cooperation with/in change can only be brought about with full disclosure to everyone involved, otherwise, there will always be "outsiders and insiders", which troubles the waters of change and hinders growth of understanding and acceptance.
In America's climate of diversity and tolerance, we do not have tradition tightly defined around cultural norms or values, as we value freedom of individual conscience. While conscience is formed within the frameworks of traditional social structures, America's government has protected civil rights at the expense of traditional values. Therein lies our cultural conflict, but, also our greatness. Because we value the individual conscience, even while the traditional social structures have undergone great stress and change, we, Americans are open to be educated. Education was what our Bill of Rights is about in allowing the Freedom of the Press, the Freedom of Assembly, the Freedom of Speech, ETC. We are a free nation, which should value civil discourse, which should include religious freedom and expression as well!
I think that American ideals are the great future for the Globe!
Monday, November 10, 2008
The Question of Christian Faith
Most Christians have a story, whether they came to faith through an personal experience, or were brought up in Church. These Christian stories are what bring meaning and/or understanding of what is of value and why. Different denominations, as well as the Catholic or Orthodox faith would understand these meanings differently and thereby would impact one's life differently.'
I do not believe that a person's faith commitment is defined in childhood, as understanding one's faith is a lifelong process. And life's commitments, contingencies and questions all impact how one evaluates their faith and how they continue or discontinue that faith.
In coming to faith, I had understood an unconditionality to love that I had never known and desparately needed to believe. But, as understanding changes due to many variables, I have chosen to distance myself from such a simplistic understanding, as God is not "active" in the way I had understood in my earlier experience and understanding. God is the great unknown mystery of life. He is not confined within any text, or within nature itself, but is seen in many ways through the human capacity for love, inspiration, creativity, hope and rationality. These are the ways in which I long to worship, not in a particular form, but a particular thrust.
I am glad that my Christian faith has been impacted by American ideals of justice before law, liberty to pursue goals or values that mean the most to me.
I am fortunate to be in a free nation, which allows freedom of speech, press, and assembly. Americans need to understand their faith as one that represents a God that allows individual difference and values individual uniqueness.
I'm hoping that my faith journey will not be defined by what I do not believe, as that has been of major importance in throwing off what is unvaluable to me, but what I choose to be committed to and why those commitments are of importance. Faith, then, becomes a flexible, but defining choice.
I do not believe that a person's faith commitment is defined in childhood, as understanding one's faith is a lifelong process. And life's commitments, contingencies and questions all impact how one evaluates their faith and how they continue or discontinue that faith.
In coming to faith, I had understood an unconditionality to love that I had never known and desparately needed to believe. But, as understanding changes due to many variables, I have chosen to distance myself from such a simplistic understanding, as God is not "active" in the way I had understood in my earlier experience and understanding. God is the great unknown mystery of life. He is not confined within any text, or within nature itself, but is seen in many ways through the human capacity for love, inspiration, creativity, hope and rationality. These are the ways in which I long to worship, not in a particular form, but a particular thrust.
I am glad that my Christian faith has been impacted by American ideals of justice before law, liberty to pursue goals or values that mean the most to me.
I am fortunate to be in a free nation, which allows freedom of speech, press, and assembly. Americans need to understand their faith as one that represents a God that allows individual difference and values individual uniqueness.
I'm hoping that my faith journey will not be defined by what I do not believe, as that has been of major importance in throwing off what is unvaluable to me, but what I choose to be committed to and why those commitments are of importance. Faith, then, becomes a flexible, but defining choice.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
The Education My Daughter Gave Me On YouTube!
This afternoon my oldest son, his girlfriend, and my daughter sat around our table discussing the political decisions that are facing us on Tuesday. The coversation came around to Obama and what he stood for. My daughter had happened upon two YouTube videos of Obama at campaign rallies and was relaying the information to us at the table. I could not believe my ears, so I asked her to inform me through my eyes!
She immediately got our computor and pulled up a YouTube video of Obama making fun of a heckler and cutting his question of by saying "Blah, Blah Blah...""You can vote for someone else", etc. This was on the heels of my learning last week about Obama dismissing some of the media travelling with his campaign, as they were pro-McCain!!! And this is America?
Obama wants a civilian military police. And he is portraying what our America may become under his "dictatorship"(especially, if the Democrats hold the reigns of power in Congress). He has investigated Joe the Plumber, one newswoman's husband, and some others. No doubt there are those that we don't (and won't) know about. This is quite disturbing that the Democrats who were outraged over Guantanomo Bay situation, are looking the other way when it comes to the abuse of power on the campaign trail. Are they so afraid of Obama's power that they fear speaking out? Do none of them care enough about our freedoms? Do none have the courage to go against their party when principle is of primary importance?
John McCain took the high road when he could have gotten out of prison, by denying some of his basic commitments to his country. But, he did not. Which candidate do we really think has the country's best interest at heart? Obama certainly wants change, but it is systemic change of our cultural values of freedom. We must not be so blind and focused on temporary promises that we forget the future of American ideals!
She immediately got our computor and pulled up a YouTube video of Obama making fun of a heckler and cutting his question of by saying "Blah, Blah Blah...""You can vote for someone else", etc. This was on the heels of my learning last week about Obama dismissing some of the media travelling with his campaign, as they were pro-McCain!!! And this is America?
Obama wants a civilian military police. And he is portraying what our America may become under his "dictatorship"(especially, if the Democrats hold the reigns of power in Congress). He has investigated Joe the Plumber, one newswoman's husband, and some others. No doubt there are those that we don't (and won't) know about. This is quite disturbing that the Democrats who were outraged over Guantanomo Bay situation, are looking the other way when it comes to the abuse of power on the campaign trail. Are they so afraid of Obama's power that they fear speaking out? Do none of them care enough about our freedoms? Do none have the courage to go against their party when principle is of primary importance?
John McCain took the high road when he could have gotten out of prison, by denying some of his basic commitments to his country. But, he did not. Which candidate do we really think has the country's best interest at heart? Obama certainly wants change, but it is systemic change of our cultural values of freedom. We must not be so blind and focused on temporary promises that we forget the future of American ideals!
Friday, October 31, 2008
Discrimination, Liberty, and Value
What is the highest value when it comes to a culture?
I just read on 'First Things" that there was a distinction made between the values of equality and liberty. Where Europe prioritizes equality, the United States values liberty. Which value should be prioritized?
If one prioritizes equality, then, how is there anyway to 'police" that value? Wouldn't government be a form of inequality, as those in power posiition would determine who was or wasn't discriminating and on what basis (law/rule) that would be determined. Society cannot function apart from government, therefore, equality cannot be prioritized.
If liberty is prioritized, then, would there be equality, because those in government would be implementing laws that would gurantee freedom under law. As long as an individual respected law, then there would be liberty to pursue their own ends. Therefore, good government must prioritize liberty, so that justice can be upheld. There is not justice without liberty.
There has been much talk about Obama being a socialist. I don't know whether he is really commtted to the ideology of socialism, so much as against discrimination and inequality. If you listen to the pastor whose ministry he listened to for over 20 years, then one begins to understand that he wants to make sure that those who have been discriminated against will get their just due. He is for globalization on a wide scale, so that America, as an imperialistic nation, will not implement their culture on another. He is against faith based institutions because he believes in universal education, as well as universal healthcare. He wants government to implement OT law, so that individual liberty is limited to moral responsibilty. This is just short of Shairia law.
I hope that those who care enough about the benefits of living in a free society will take seriously what is at stake in this election and not "toy" with the idea of a Utopian "promise for tomorrow"!
I just read on 'First Things" that there was a distinction made between the values of equality and liberty. Where Europe prioritizes equality, the United States values liberty. Which value should be prioritized?
If one prioritizes equality, then, how is there anyway to 'police" that value? Wouldn't government be a form of inequality, as those in power posiition would determine who was or wasn't discriminating and on what basis (law/rule) that would be determined. Society cannot function apart from government, therefore, equality cannot be prioritized.
If liberty is prioritized, then, would there be equality, because those in government would be implementing laws that would gurantee freedom under law. As long as an individual respected law, then there would be liberty to pursue their own ends. Therefore, good government must prioritize liberty, so that justice can be upheld. There is not justice without liberty.
There has been much talk about Obama being a socialist. I don't know whether he is really commtted to the ideology of socialism, so much as against discrimination and inequality. If you listen to the pastor whose ministry he listened to for over 20 years, then one begins to understand that he wants to make sure that those who have been discriminated against will get their just due. He is for globalization on a wide scale, so that America, as an imperialistic nation, will not implement their culture on another. He is against faith based institutions because he believes in universal education, as well as universal healthcare. He wants government to implement OT law, so that individual liberty is limited to moral responsibilty. This is just short of Shairia law.
I hope that those who care enough about the benefits of living in a free society will take seriously what is at stake in this election and not "toy" with the idea of a Utopian "promise for tomorrow"!
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Two E-mails, Two Views and Questions
I recieved an e-mail from a long time friend, that I don't hear from that often. She and I were best friends back in the 70's. She now is a citizen of Namibia and is married to a foreign service officier.
Her e-mail was a request for a signature on a petition against an organization that wants to take Christian broadcasting off the air. The hearing will be done under the FCC in D.C. I will investigate, as I believe that there should be religious freedom. While I value religious freedom, the times are such that religion has become the "enemy" to some. As I have stated before, the Somalian woman at the American Enterprise Institute is sure that Islam will take advantage of our religious freedom, minority rights, and tolerance to gain ground for power in our political world. She is opposed to any religion in schools because of this conviction. What do we do as a free society, that desires to continue to have its freedom, while protecting itself from those who do not value freedom?
Another e-mail came this same day from the Center for Inquiry that stated that there were four centers established in India promoting humanism and scientific inquiry. These rationalists value the individual, so they are standing against the caste system and for humanism. They desire to promote freedom of scientific inquiry and stand against superstition of all kinds. I do adhere to some of these values, as well.
Two e-mails that represent two different values, both of which I understand and appreciate. I am partial to the CFI's goals and values, but I do not want to deny others the right to religious expression. I recognize that many academians may not value some of the names that were mentioned in the e-mail that desired religious freedom, but does education mean that we must limit individual choices? (Paul Kurtz, was at Columbia U. with John Dewey. ) I can understand that the educated feels a need to make sure that those who have limited education are not furthered in their ignorance. I agree! But, at the same time, we must not limit the difference of opinion that upholds the free discourse and exchange of ideas in the public arena. Otherwise, we are headed down a road to propaganda, and an elite class that maintains the reigns of the information structures. We must resist this stance at all costs! So, religious education is also of value in a free society.
So, what is the FCC's concern with the freedom of religious broadcasts? And why are they even considering limiting this freedom in our country? I don't know, but I will check it out. Are you concerned about the freedom of our airways?
Her e-mail was a request for a signature on a petition against an organization that wants to take Christian broadcasting off the air. The hearing will be done under the FCC in D.C. I will investigate, as I believe that there should be religious freedom. While I value religious freedom, the times are such that religion has become the "enemy" to some. As I have stated before, the Somalian woman at the American Enterprise Institute is sure that Islam will take advantage of our religious freedom, minority rights, and tolerance to gain ground for power in our political world. She is opposed to any religion in schools because of this conviction. What do we do as a free society, that desires to continue to have its freedom, while protecting itself from those who do not value freedom?
Another e-mail came this same day from the Center for Inquiry that stated that there were four centers established in India promoting humanism and scientific inquiry. These rationalists value the individual, so they are standing against the caste system and for humanism. They desire to promote freedom of scientific inquiry and stand against superstition of all kinds. I do adhere to some of these values, as well.
Two e-mails that represent two different values, both of which I understand and appreciate. I am partial to the CFI's goals and values, but I do not want to deny others the right to religious expression. I recognize that many academians may not value some of the names that were mentioned in the e-mail that desired religious freedom, but does education mean that we must limit individual choices? (Paul Kurtz, was at Columbia U. with John Dewey. ) I can understand that the educated feels a need to make sure that those who have limited education are not furthered in their ignorance. I agree! But, at the same time, we must not limit the difference of opinion that upholds the free discourse and exchange of ideas in the public arena. Otherwise, we are headed down a road to propaganda, and an elite class that maintains the reigns of the information structures. We must resist this stance at all costs! So, religious education is also of value in a free society.
So, what is the FCC's concern with the freedom of religious broadcasts? And why are they even considering limiting this freedom in our country? I don't know, but I will check it out. Are you concerned about the freedom of our airways?
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Doing Unto Others and Ethical Choices
Choice is a value that makes us human. Humans have a choice because they have a mind, that can reason about difference in values and the choices that uphold those most important values. People choose what they do for different reasons. But, all humans choose what they value most, or think is most important in spectrum of choices. Reason, then, is an important human attribute to develop.
World religions have different ways of addressing the ethical, but the ethical is understood to define what is universal. In the Judeo/Christian tradition, the universal is the Golden Rule. In Kant's moral philosophy, it is the categorical imperative.
People usually agree about the universals, the "ideals". But, they diverge in how to decide to act in a real world that is not ideal. That is the quandary for all decisions in this life, whether the individual, group, or nation.
How do we resolve the dilemma to the questions of choice and the ideal in an imperfect world? Well, that really depends on how you view the world and the players in the world. Conservative Christians believe that God acts in the world. But, what this means differs. Some believe that God does miracles directly impacting the world, while others believe that God has given humans the mandate to change the world.
If we believe that the world needs change, whether one believes that it comes about directly from the hand of God or not, comes about by understanding the importance of the Golden Rule. How are we to apply that in our imperfect world? The Golden Rule cannot be implemented without choice, so government is a priority. Good government is made by people who are public servants. And the American government is the best means of choosing these public servants. These public servants are called to maintain the values of freedom for our people in religion, vocation, and lifestyle (within the bounaries of law).
Therefore, good government is the most important value to pursue, so that the moral order can be maintained, and people can live in peace. It is also most important so that individuals can make their choices in freedom.
The ideal values of religion are relativized to good governance in allowing choice in a real world.
World religions have different ways of addressing the ethical, but the ethical is understood to define what is universal. In the Judeo/Christian tradition, the universal is the Golden Rule. In Kant's moral philosophy, it is the categorical imperative.
People usually agree about the universals, the "ideals". But, they diverge in how to decide to act in a real world that is not ideal. That is the quandary for all decisions in this life, whether the individual, group, or nation.
How do we resolve the dilemma to the questions of choice and the ideal in an imperfect world? Well, that really depends on how you view the world and the players in the world. Conservative Christians believe that God acts in the world. But, what this means differs. Some believe that God does miracles directly impacting the world, while others believe that God has given humans the mandate to change the world.
If we believe that the world needs change, whether one believes that it comes about directly from the hand of God or not, comes about by understanding the importance of the Golden Rule. How are we to apply that in our imperfect world? The Golden Rule cannot be implemented without choice, so government is a priority. Good government is made by people who are public servants. And the American government is the best means of choosing these public servants. These public servants are called to maintain the values of freedom for our people in religion, vocation, and lifestyle (within the bounaries of law).
Therefore, good government is the most important value to pursue, so that the moral order can be maintained, and people can live in peace. It is also most important so that individuals can make their choices in freedom.
The ideal values of religion are relativized to good governance in allowing choice in a real world.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Moral Order, The Freedom of Speech and The Challenge to Change
Yesterday's post was about first and foremost, the freedom of speech given to the individual in our American culture. This is an important virtue in our culture because it gives people "a voice" and it is foundational to our free access to "news", as well as an implement of social change.
Just because our press is a free one, does not mean that our press is a moral one. The freedom of our press means that it is not governmentally controlled and because it is not controlled by the government, the government is accountable. The press, in this sense, is a balance of power, because it can reveal certain "news" that would not be beneficial for a politician's reelection. This is a good thing, as it can be an instrument of educating the people to maintain "freedom".
While the press can be useful and is useful, for the most part, for maintaining accountability in government, the press is fed by the "free market" mentality. "Sin" sells and what sells brings prosperity. And profit and prosperity is what ends up defining what stories are going to be pursued. "The market" drives journalists, publishers, reporters, and the news media, in general to be the first to "get the story". But, our society is not so much dedicated to informing themselves, as in entertaining themselves. This has cheapened the media and its purpose of keeping government accountable and the people informed.
Not only is the press benefitting on the "sins" of its leaders and poplace, but the media feeds the public with their own bias. Editorials do not belong in the headlines, but this, in my opinion, is what it has become. Everyone that cares enough to inform themselves, understands that there are liberal and conservative news coverage. And it becomes the public's responsibilty to flip the channels and/or buy two newpapers, if they want both sides to the story. Is there not a way to report a story without bias? I thought this was traditionally understood to be what the news media was about, giving unbiased news to inform the public. Now, I fear that the news media has another agenda, it own political agenda. Instead of educating the poplace, the media politicizes the news and campaigns for their candidate. We become a divided people that are ill-informed about the real issues, because we are focused on the politcalization of the media and the news, itself.
This is the downfall of a "free people", a disregard and a lack of appreciation of freedom. Freedom is not won without a costs and the costs are personal, as well as societal. The costs are our moral responsiblity. Our moral order demands that our freedom of speech be directed in ways that are edifying to our poplace and not just entertaining. The challenge to change might be a sacrificial one, as far as prosperity, but it just might make a difference to our society. Besides, writers are known to be creative and they can use their creativity to write note-worthy stories in an entertaining way to woo us off of pablum, so that we can be an informed and educated people. Without this change, our lost opportunity will be the furtherance of our moral demise. And our moral demise will inevitably limit our freedom in the future. There is nothing like a lack of informatin to enslave. But, our enslavement will be one chosen by default, unless the press changes and takes their responsibility seriously.
Just because our press is a free one, does not mean that our press is a moral one. The freedom of our press means that it is not governmentally controlled and because it is not controlled by the government, the government is accountable. The press, in this sense, is a balance of power, because it can reveal certain "news" that would not be beneficial for a politician's reelection. This is a good thing, as it can be an instrument of educating the people to maintain "freedom".
While the press can be useful and is useful, for the most part, for maintaining accountability in government, the press is fed by the "free market" mentality. "Sin" sells and what sells brings prosperity. And profit and prosperity is what ends up defining what stories are going to be pursued. "The market" drives journalists, publishers, reporters, and the news media, in general to be the first to "get the story". But, our society is not so much dedicated to informing themselves, as in entertaining themselves. This has cheapened the media and its purpose of keeping government accountable and the people informed.
Not only is the press benefitting on the "sins" of its leaders and poplace, but the media feeds the public with their own bias. Editorials do not belong in the headlines, but this, in my opinion, is what it has become. Everyone that cares enough to inform themselves, understands that there are liberal and conservative news coverage. And it becomes the public's responsibilty to flip the channels and/or buy two newpapers, if they want both sides to the story. Is there not a way to report a story without bias? I thought this was traditionally understood to be what the news media was about, giving unbiased news to inform the public. Now, I fear that the news media has another agenda, it own political agenda. Instead of educating the poplace, the media politicizes the news and campaigns for their candidate. We become a divided people that are ill-informed about the real issues, because we are focused on the politcalization of the media and the news, itself.
This is the downfall of a "free people", a disregard and a lack of appreciation of freedom. Freedom is not won without a costs and the costs are personal, as well as societal. The costs are our moral responsiblity. Our moral order demands that our freedom of speech be directed in ways that are edifying to our poplace and not just entertaining. The challenge to change might be a sacrificial one, as far as prosperity, but it just might make a difference to our society. Besides, writers are known to be creative and they can use their creativity to write note-worthy stories in an entertaining way to woo us off of pablum, so that we can be an informed and educated people. Without this change, our lost opportunity will be the furtherance of our moral demise. And our moral demise will inevitably limit our freedom in the future. There is nothing like a lack of informatin to enslave. But, our enslavement will be one chosen by default, unless the press changes and takes their responsibility seriously.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
