When Rights Make Wrongs

Rights are the American "birth-right", as Americans believe that the individual matters. But, when do rights make for wrongs? Rights have limitations, don't they? Or do they?

Last night, I watched Geraldo, who had asked a Black Panther onto his show. Geraldo, Fox News, and many other America institutions were villified in the name of "civil rights". Film clip snippetts were shown where Black Panthers were calling for violence to establish justice. Geraldo was visibly upset and disturbed over the "racist rhetoric" and tried unsuccessful (IMO) to get this Black Panther lawyer to see or listen to his viewpoint. What would have been the response if a white person had said similar racist statements, calling for "equality" and "justice"?

It was obvious after a few minutes that the conversation was not going to be a dialogue, or even a question and answer format, but a controlled and determined rant on how the African American has been treated. The "old, old" story of discrimination, a lack of equal opportunity, etc. etc.

When Geraldo tried to point out how it was the white majority that fought in the Civil War, elected Abraham Lincoln, etc., the Black Panther repeated that Glenn Beck was being pointedly disrespectful to host a 'tea party' on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on Martin Luther King's birthday. Do whites not have any rights on Martin Luther King's birthday? Do we not have a right to the Lincoln Memorial, or is it only a "Black" sanctuary, holy ground for sacred rights?

I don't know where this will end, but it must. Groups that demand rights, divide our nation and bring disharmony to society.

Is there a difference when African Americans "speak hotly" and angrily about "civil rights" and when the "tea parties" do?

I think so. But, why?

The tea parties seek to bring accountability to government where there has been unaccountability. America is a representative Republic, where the representatives have not heard or do not care to represent their contiuencies. We are going to be taxed for a healthcare plan that the majority did not want. And the administrator of Medicare seems to have oppositional views from the American populace.

Accountability and equality were the themes in the beginning of Martin Luther King's civil rights movement. Today, though, after equal rights have been passed, and anti-discrimanatory laws have been "established", people have come to accept diversity and expect it. No one can help individual cases where prejuidiced people do evil things in the name of their prejuidice. We shouldn't be surprised by such behavior, as humans do divide and understand their "world" by categorization.

These Black Panthers are seeking justice by angry dissent, without considering any other point of view than their own.

Groups that seek to divide America by strife and bitterness should have their rights stripped from them. America is a free nation and one can find some place to belong, without demanding uniformity when it comes to the diverse population that makes America what it is. We are not to be united by creed, race, or social standing. We are Americans, and we are united by our liberty. The very liberty that is being challenged by those that seek to suggest that America is an imperialistic, and bigotted nation.

Is "Messed Up", Just Another Name for Liberty?

On a blog I follow "American Creation", there has been a discussion on whether America is a Christian nation, or not. There are various opinions, but one that most agree upon, is that our Founding Fathers were "theistic rationalists". They did not believe necessarily in the Trinity, as they were 'Unitarian".

Our Founders belief in "order" was what inspired them to "create" our form of government. They assumed by the witness of history that men were "self seeking", so they set up a balance and separation of powers. No person was uncorruptable, so no person should have absolute rule. We were not to be ruled by kings, dictators, or tyrants. We believe in liberty for religion and individual conscience.

Although we were a nation whose diversity was maintained under the "rule of law", we have become a people that has no value of the "collective". Because America allows such freedom, we have become a nation that is about freedom or liberty more than life.

Why would we loose what our nation fought and died for in the past? The right for the individual to live?

Today's medical miracles and scientific discoveries have made life what it could never be in the past. We live longer and more comfortable lives, and some of us think that this is the pursuit of life, quantity and quality.

Does an individual have the right to decide how, when and where he will die? The religious believe that all life is a gift from God and that to do damage to life is negating God, which is the ultimate unpardonable sin. Others seem to allow individuals to decide their conscience concerning these issues. If there are diverse views, then what is the damage to our culture? Religious freedom can still be upheld, even if there are some that believe in euthanasia, chosen by the individual.

Many are concerned with universal healthcare. Everyone is promised an entitlement to bring a healthier life, but what really does it do, but limit all of us in choice? We cannot have it both ways, either we will hold to individual liberty, or we will commit to collective "good". And "collective good" is a positive view of the law, not the limiting one.

While I agree that we have gotten overly independent as to our responsiblities and obligations in our families, and our communities, we must not give up our understanding of being a "free people", where no "elite" decides our liberties. We will cease to be a "free people", when the "elites" determine and decide for us, what we should believe, and how we are to behave.

Limited government was to be upheld so that government would not intrude upon the individual, his family and his possessions. (The supposed criminal has to have his rights "read" to him, before the police officier takes him into custody. He is innocent until proven guilty.) This is a right that is to be protected, otherwise, we will live by a tribal mentality that preys upon others for the 'common good", as determined by these "elites", whether religious or academic.

Many "elites" make fun of those who like to have the right to their guns, a right granted in the Constitution. But, while I may not value that right in the city, is it something that should be decided for the average "joe" in the Midwest? This is why we have a representative Republic, because we believe that our representatives will represent our values when they meet to defend our liberties and what that means in legislation. We must not give up that diversity, otherwise we will be doomed to be a "totaltalarian Religious Regime, or a Secularized State".

This battle becomes a fine balance between religious freedom and moral order. Moeal order is established by the "powers that be" in the laws of our land. We cannot give up the value of our country's "rule of law' without giving up one of the basic values that protect all of us, and that included the individuals own right to protect and defend himself from tyranny (whether religious or political).

Today's Thoughts on 'Free Speech"

This morning while looking over a blog I follow, I noticed a response that was really an attack. As I read the response, I couldn't help but think that this person's opinion was a personal attack hidden behind the agenda of inhibiting "free speech". I was bewildered.

Free speech is a right in our country, as it is garuanteed in our Bill of Rights. It holds government accountable through investigative reporting in our news agencies. Those countries that do not allow freedom of speech (opinion) and propagate an agenda through the media are not free societies! We must stand for "free speech".

One aspect of "free speech" that has been questioned is: what constitutes discourtesy, "slander", and undermines our civil discourse? Much has been written and discussed about the issue. But, without full disclosure of information, the public is limited in their ability to judge, discriminate and assess what they believe. This is tragic, as it leaves those in power not just unaccountable, but enlarges their power base. Those who hold the reigns of leadership understand the power of the media, rhetoric, and "image".

While "image" and rhetoric can appeal to the public on a broad base and give a "good feeling" about our leaders, "image", "power", and "rhetoric" are not what leadership is about. Leadership is an ability to see the future with hope, not just for self-interest, but for the public's welfare. And good leaders know how to inspire, encourage, and equip those around them to be "all they can be", as well as listen and learn from others, themselves. Many leaders do not have the ability to listen, to learn, to grow, through learning about who or what they want to change. This is a tragedy, not just for the particular leader, but also for the leader's impact and outcomes.

This morning's encounter with another's dispute over "free speech" got me thinking about how much I embrace forthrightness, frankness, honesty, and courage to speak as one sees it. This is why I like to read and hear from the atheists or agnostic, as they arent' afraid of 'hurting others" so much as trying to grapple with the questions, and give answers about the world.

Those who adhere to learning in all areas are those that will be more likely open to hear another. It is only those whose eyes are focused on some "god-given" knowledge that supercedes any other knowledge that are dangerous, because they will not listen or learn from other arenas.

The West fights not just to preserve our right to free speech, which is enough, but our way of life, where each individual has an opportunity to explore, enlarge and grow in any direction, within the boundaries of law. I hope that we do not give up that right due to a tepid commitment to our government's values. This is why our conuntry is divided today. Those who are not tepid are passionate about protecting our values of freedom and individuality, but we disagree about how to go about it. We see the "enemy" differently. Some of us see the human enemy, whereas, others see the "ideology" that must be fought. We are in a culture war, at home and abroad. We must resolve our differences in pritotizing the value of freedom, so that we can maintain and uphold justice, otherwise, we doom all of us to be under the dominion of unjust men in the name of "god". And injustice will prevail upon the individual, as well as society.

Art, Form, and Expression

Art in the free world is a personal, as well as a cultural "expression". One's view of life and value is represented by these forms of expression, whether these expressions are in the printed press about politics, or whether these expressions are "artistic" ways of expressing other "forms" of "life". The West values the freedom of expression and so, we do not confine or undermine free expression. But, there are other countries that do.

Just this morning while going throught the massive piles of last week's newpapers, I read where China is now limiting Facebook and Twitter. There is much regulation is such countries because of their need to control the population's information that might undermine "elite power".

Such is also the case in Islamic countries where women are covered from head to toe. The free expression of "fashion" is not to be desired, affirmed, valued or allowed. "Allah" is a "black and white" God. Color, whether literal or metaphorical, is not appreciated in such cultures.

Even though conservative Islamic woman have no choice in their public image, I found many Islamic women going throught the history of fashion exhibition at the Victoria and Albert museum in London. I wondered why they were interested. Was art and its value a human universal, even when it is suppressed? The "universal" categories of "black and white" were more in line with "conservatism", than a particular religious tradition.

As I was looking and pondering over these thoughts, I came across two English women, who were viewing the case before them. One made a rather disintergrating and distainful remark about the "American designer sweatsuit" in the case. As she and her friend were obviously interested in "designer clothes", there was no value judgment made against expensive items. So, I wondered why the value judgment was made against this particular item of clothing.

The statement seemed to be dismissing as extravagant an expensive sweatsuit, while making allowance for much more expensive items of clothing. Was this value judgment based on a "traditional" understanding of aristocratic dressing, for an occassion? The value of aristocracy and its "image" is important to European identity, while Americans are practical and value using thier money where it is most useful, which is an individually determined definition. Sweatsuits are probably worn more than an evening gown, for instance. So, some Americans might find value in spending their money on an expensive sweatsuit, than an expensive gown.

America is known for individualism, informality, practicality, pragmatism, and liberty. I wonder if other countries look at our "success" as innovators, and our economic liberties as something that is envied and resented. America has represented many things to many people, because of our freedoms. Our freedoms are unique in this world. And I think rulers in other countries envy our "power" over the "ideals" of thier people.

I think being equal under law in a representative government is the best "ideal" there is in this world. Americans should value, defend and maintain this "form" rather than bickering about other "forms" of expression and being in this world.

A Re-Definition of What is Valued ..

Belief is a form that is constructed by certain groups that maintain their group identity. These are groups such as faith groups, social groups, nation states, etc. Those that are the leaders within these groups formulate what is to be believed to maintain identification and social order to accomplish their particular purposes. Beliefs form laws, and are speicified by the group's values .

While beliefs form laws, these beliefs also define behavior that is appropriate within a certain group. Those who maintain the behavior that is defined as appropriate are the ones on the "inside". These people "belong". "Others" do not belong. These boundaries help to define the "self'.

"Self" is a function of the ego and those who have healthy egos are defined by no source outside of themselves, as they are defined by their own values and not group identification.

If the ego is not formed or values are not clarified, then the ego is formed by those in their particular cultural location. This frames the ego's defenses and helps the "ego" to define itself over against another ego. This maintains an "us and them" mentality. But, "us and them" mentality is healthy, in that it distinguishes between. Healthy egos do make distinctions.

I have come to the conclusion that believers base their faith on belief systems (and systems are part of the definition of "original sin"). These maintain religious identification, while those who base their faith in reason have two responses.

Those who base their reason on bahavior are agnostic. They do not want to commit to a particular definition of value, whereas, those who are atheistic base their value on reason alone. Self is defined by reason's assessment of greatest value.

Agnostics are tenuous in their commitment because their "self" has not commited one way or another. Perhaps, ego definition is needed by identifying with others in their behavior, while those whose ego is defined does not hesitate to define themselves outside of any other framework. They evaluate their commitment on "self-interest". So, conflict in self interest brings about a resolution of one's important and most valued commitments.

I think that committing to oneself in what one values most is not dismissing the other, but defining self. This is a necessary "duty", as without definition, there can be no resolution, commitment, or focus in one's life as to values.

Diversity in unity is for the functioning of society that is reasonable. While all men are created equal, there are differences that must be allowed. These distinctions are where boundaries must be maintained in valuing the best. It is ethical in focus, as it chooses between two "goods". It distinguishes and discerns. This is why it is important that leadership is not given to those who cannot be diverse in their understanding of "diversity". Otherwise, we allow absolutist to draw lines that need more nuance, subtlty, understanding etc.This is what diplomacy is about. But diplomats also have to deal with absolutists. This view of diversity in unity defines what is "true" for one's "self definition.

Unity in diversity is the view of group identification and not self identification. Unity in diversity calls for conformity to group identifiers, so that the stated purposes of leadership can be followed. This does not allow freedom of conscience, but a commitment to certain purposes already defined. This view is a functional approach to orgaizational structuring and societial functioning. This view defines what is "love" or tolerance.

Therefore, I continue to uphold our Representative Republic as the highest moral order and value for it allows the individual to choose his greatest good and greatest value within the definitions of lawful behavior. The individual pursues his own course, and not another's for his own life and as he does so, he brings value to society and understands his own values better.

Someone said on another blog site that America does not have a culture. Culture is defined by religious tradition and we do not define ourselves on religious tradition, but a freedom of conscience, that is upheld by laws. This is what the separation of Church and State is about. The State protects the individual from being accused as a criminal based on religious ideals., and yet, it protects the religious individuals freedoms, as well.

Our laws are defined by universal human ideals that protect individuality or human rights. But, "We, the People" have defined oursevles by our Constitutional government and discriminate based on citizen rights. Therefore, "We, the people" do exist apart from another nation's interests. We must maintain the distincition and stop allowing multiculturalism to play into the hands of dissolving our freedoms "as a people". The Nation State still has significance and the citizen still has rights!