My "first love" was psychology, but since my family was fundamentalists, they didn't want me to major in psychology. (They really didn't want me to go to college, but become a dental hygenist.) So, right out of high school, I chose to major in English. But, later chose to major in Sociology.
Since I married before finishing college, I was going to transfer to the new college shortly after moving and finish my degree. But, out of state tuition was prohibitive, so we decided to wait the year to establish residency and a lower tuition bill. But, an uplanned pregnancy changed the plans of my life for the next 13 years. I was too busy raising my family and establishing a "home".
As my husband changed vocations and tuition was underwritten by his institution, he encouraged me to finish my degree. But, the institution did not have a major in Sociology, only Social Work. I couldn't see myself committing to the socialistic view of welfare (at least that was the way I understood social work). And I still can't. I am too much of an individualist.
I used to like Sociology, as I used to be "enamored with family". But, family, and organizational structures as a whole leave a lot to be desired, when one comes to understand that these structures do not "care" about the individual, only their agenda, or goals. This is not as it should be in families, but all too often the conservative have a "right way" of teaching that they can't see the child themself. Or the more liberalized are too concerned for their career to be bothered with "such nonsense" of child-rearing to consider the needs of the child. (I know that I am overly sterotyping "cultures", but just to make my point...).
And then, there is the "culture" of "evil", which is "inhabiting" a organizational structuring that doesn't "see" the parts for the whole. This is the culture of "social death", and "isolation". The individual's own life is consumed and assumed by the organizational structure. And it kills and dishonors the life of the individual. This is what collectivism does, because it is caught up with its own vision, purpose, plan or "image". The politics of collectivism is demeaning and demoralizing, unless one is "at the top".
So, I don't think I like Sociology, like I once did. And yet, I know that the world must survive by organization.
Showing posts with label Fabian socialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fabian socialism. Show all posts
Monday, February 15, 2010
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.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Social Responsibility and Accountability of the Free
I have been thinking about social responsibility, as this is the philosophy of this adminstration. And the "rebellion" against such a universalized view was demonstrated in the "tea parties" that were thrown across our nation. Our taxes are being used for what those in power deem is appropriate, or socially responsible. But, some in the public are disagreeing with this view. And others view resistance to what is deemed our 'duty" as selfish and self-interested. These deem their social responsibility their duty to underwrite and support, as they think that the demise of our country is grounded in social irresponsibility.
Just yesterday my husband read the tax returns of Obama and Biden that were reported on some news source. He is Dutch, so that must be taken into account :), when he told me that Biden had given .7% of his income, while Obama had given 6% of his. He was a little perturbed, as the waste in government is his experience and he believes in being frugal, especially when it comes to another person's property! But, these men had not even given the tithe, and yet, they expect the taxpayer to pay their dues to others in social responsibility.
I am not suggesting that Obama or Biden did anything wrong in their giving, but as examples, are they to set "antoher standard" for us, the "common folk"? I do not believe that there should be "mandated" charitable giving, otherwise, I would be for "taxation"! I just wonder if socialists, who WOULD mandate another's giving through taxation would continue in the benevolence:), just as they have paid all the taxes they owe!!! :).
BTW, I think that "social gospelers" have furthered the cause of socialism, and at what costs? There should not be the "mix" of religion with politics, otherwise, one does disservice to freedom of individual rights.
The problem today is how one understands the "human". Is the human "just an animal", that needs proper training? Then,the question is what is the proper training? And on whose and what terms?
Is the "human" a brain? Then, what is the mind, and how the mind understands and processes information? Or is the brain a computor that only becomes what it "should be" if the input is "right"? Then who or what determines the "right"?
Is the "human" just a social construct? Then, which culture is to determine what is "right"?
If the "human" looses memory, is the human the same person? What about those who have brain injuries and no longer have the same interests, emotions, or personality, in general? Is that person the previous person, or not?
ETC.!There are too many questions to determine anything, so our public policy flounders because the Constitution is "outdated". There needs to be a "new foundation" in the name of globalism and globalization? How are we going to bridge the gap of the great divide among the many cultures and the climates they breed?
Just yesterday my husband read the tax returns of Obama and Biden that were reported on some news source. He is Dutch, so that must be taken into account :), when he told me that Biden had given .7% of his income, while Obama had given 6% of his. He was a little perturbed, as the waste in government is his experience and he believes in being frugal, especially when it comes to another person's property! But, these men had not even given the tithe, and yet, they expect the taxpayer to pay their dues to others in social responsibility.
I am not suggesting that Obama or Biden did anything wrong in their giving, but as examples, are they to set "antoher standard" for us, the "common folk"? I do not believe that there should be "mandated" charitable giving, otherwise, I would be for "taxation"! I just wonder if socialists, who WOULD mandate another's giving through taxation would continue in the benevolence:), just as they have paid all the taxes they owe!!! :).
BTW, I think that "social gospelers" have furthered the cause of socialism, and at what costs? There should not be the "mix" of religion with politics, otherwise, one does disservice to freedom of individual rights.
The problem today is how one understands the "human". Is the human "just an animal", that needs proper training? Then,the question is what is the proper training? And on whose and what terms?
Is the "human" a brain? Then, what is the mind, and how the mind understands and processes information? Or is the brain a computor that only becomes what it "should be" if the input is "right"? Then who or what determines the "right"?
Is the "human" just a social construct? Then, which culture is to determine what is "right"?
If the "human" looses memory, is the human the same person? What about those who have brain injuries and no longer have the same interests, emotions, or personality, in general? Is that person the previous person, or not?
ETC.!There are too many questions to determine anything, so our public policy flounders because the Constitution is "outdated". There needs to be a "new foundation" in the name of globalism and globalization? How are we going to bridge the gap of the great divide among the many cultures and the climates they breed?
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Various Thoughts on Identity
I have had numerous thoughts today on identity from different sources of "inspiration". The Theme of them all is unity and diversity.
Our American identity is formed around our freedoms to be different. The government for the most part, is to protect those freedoms so that we live in peace. While this is what is provided under the Constitution through our leaders pledge to uphold the values of the individual, lately, those individual values have been challenged. Just this morning I read an editorial about our government stepping in to settle disputes between conflicting parties. So, in effect, the management and leadership of a privately owned business cannot settle its disputes with employees through union leadership without government interference. This is a cumbersome way to protect the interests of "WHO"? The Common Good, as in socialism? The government's interest in a paternalistic determination of free persons salaries?
The other news story was about the African American that killed 4 police officiers and how the "black community" is suggesting that the crime happened because of the oppression of the "black population". It is the issue of minority rights. My son said to me that the terms "nigger", "chicano", or "wussie" was used not to label a certain ethnic group, but to describe certain attitudinal and lifestyle behaviors. Those who have attitudes that "life owes them something".
These labels, and the government's determination to intervene have to do with a "rights attitude". One has the rights attitude of market economics, while the other has the rights attitude from "bitter experiences".
Today's sermon was another thought sifter. Since it is Palm Sunday, it was on the Cross. The pastor preached on solidarity of identity with Jesus in our experience. Usually those in America, and the West in general, have not identified in this way as there life is not challenged in the ways in which Jesus' life was, as we are, for the most part, not persecuted, to the point of death. Nor is our government set up to disregard the "rule of law".
While sitting there, I was struggling with the image that this made about "god". God demands, takes, and undermines identity. We are to identified with Christ to the point of death and this is called discipleship. The pastor called it identity Theft.
Identity Theft means that someone has cheated, stollen, and killed someone of their identity. And this is what Christian faith is about? God is not the "giver", "gifter", and "blesser" of life and the "Giver of personal identity", but a demanding, jealous and deterministic God. And all of that is validated by Scripture and theology.
The pastor said that this was to be every Christian's identity, as we should all "be like Christ". That is the "ideal", but this is utter nonsense, when it comes to the real world. Otherwise, we would be telling those who suffer under various "evils" to accept our "lot in life" as "god's will" and "design". When others do wrong, then we are to serve them and allow evil to prevail (believeing in an afterlife, where God will meet out just desserts. But, this also meanswe must believe in a personal God and the afterlife, which not all believe.). This view is absurd and not workable unless all Christians are to be followers of whatever "leadership" is around.
The pastor called for submission. While submission is a positive trait for trustworthy leadership, it is co-dependent for untrustworthy leadership. This is the "call" for discernment, as "otherwise", this is where abused wives are told to submit to their husbands, as Scriptures demand. There is no simple choice, when it comes to living life in this world.
I find that personal identity must be strong enough to resist such tactics of subversion, while allowing another difference. The aforementioned killing of the police officiers was an identification of "victimhood". The government's determination of another's lifestyle is undermining to personal value and choice, which undermines diversity for unity. We can never seek unity first, without affirming diversity without discrimnating against someone. Affirming diversity first will lead to understanding difference, while also affirming commonality of human identification factors. This is an important way to approach life in this world today, where diversity has been used as a means of demand, without leading to understanding of difference....
Our American identity is formed around our freedoms to be different. The government for the most part, is to protect those freedoms so that we live in peace. While this is what is provided under the Constitution through our leaders pledge to uphold the values of the individual, lately, those individual values have been challenged. Just this morning I read an editorial about our government stepping in to settle disputes between conflicting parties. So, in effect, the management and leadership of a privately owned business cannot settle its disputes with employees through union leadership without government interference. This is a cumbersome way to protect the interests of "WHO"? The Common Good, as in socialism? The government's interest in a paternalistic determination of free persons salaries?
The other news story was about the African American that killed 4 police officiers and how the "black community" is suggesting that the crime happened because of the oppression of the "black population". It is the issue of minority rights. My son said to me that the terms "nigger", "chicano", or "wussie" was used not to label a certain ethnic group, but to describe certain attitudinal and lifestyle behaviors. Those who have attitudes that "life owes them something".
These labels, and the government's determination to intervene have to do with a "rights attitude". One has the rights attitude of market economics, while the other has the rights attitude from "bitter experiences".
Today's sermon was another thought sifter. Since it is Palm Sunday, it was on the Cross. The pastor preached on solidarity of identity with Jesus in our experience. Usually those in America, and the West in general, have not identified in this way as there life is not challenged in the ways in which Jesus' life was, as we are, for the most part, not persecuted, to the point of death. Nor is our government set up to disregard the "rule of law".
While sitting there, I was struggling with the image that this made about "god". God demands, takes, and undermines identity. We are to identified with Christ to the point of death and this is called discipleship. The pastor called it identity Theft.
Identity Theft means that someone has cheated, stollen, and killed someone of their identity. And this is what Christian faith is about? God is not the "giver", "gifter", and "blesser" of life and the "Giver of personal identity", but a demanding, jealous and deterministic God. And all of that is validated by Scripture and theology.
The pastor said that this was to be every Christian's identity, as we should all "be like Christ". That is the "ideal", but this is utter nonsense, when it comes to the real world. Otherwise, we would be telling those who suffer under various "evils" to accept our "lot in life" as "god's will" and "design". When others do wrong, then we are to serve them and allow evil to prevail (believeing in an afterlife, where God will meet out just desserts. But, this also meanswe must believe in a personal God and the afterlife, which not all believe.). This view is absurd and not workable unless all Christians are to be followers of whatever "leadership" is around.
The pastor called for submission. While submission is a positive trait for trustworthy leadership, it is co-dependent for untrustworthy leadership. This is the "call" for discernment, as "otherwise", this is where abused wives are told to submit to their husbands, as Scriptures demand. There is no simple choice, when it comes to living life in this world.
I find that personal identity must be strong enough to resist such tactics of subversion, while allowing another difference. The aforementioned killing of the police officiers was an identification of "victimhood". The government's determination of another's lifestyle is undermining to personal value and choice, which undermines diversity for unity. We can never seek unity first, without affirming diversity without discrimnating against someone. Affirming diversity first will lead to understanding difference, while also affirming commonality of human identification factors. This is an important way to approach life in this world today, where diversity has been used as a means of demand, without leading to understanding of difference....
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Governments, Morality, Law and Ethics
Government is the first and most important aspect to address in our world today, not poverty. Government is about individuality and responsible behavior. Governments which inhibit the individual's life is limiting life and one of the primary values of our country is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Some think that poverty should be alleviated by population control. So, whichever way one views "world problems" there are no easy solutions, nor is one problem easily solvable.
Governments, Morality, Law and Ethics is what I should have entitled my last post on Ethics, Morality and Universalism. Please see my last post.
Governments, Morality, Law and Ethics is what I should have entitled my last post on Ethics, Morality and Universalism. Please see my last post.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Fabian Socialism and the Fight for American Ideals
I was just looking up Fabian Socialism tonight. You should look it up, it is alarming! Fabian socialists believe in a "soft" revolution of our economic and political systems, which is happening right before our eyes. The FS mantra is "selflessness", in the name of social justice and for the 'common good". I agree that most of us in the West need to learn to defer, at times, but not lay over and die! Individuality, choice, freedom and justice are not just terms that have no meaning for the "common", but was used to protect the "common". That is the basis of our democracy. That concept of protection of the common is changing. Paternalism is alive and well. Welcome to the world of the Fabian socialist!
There was one commentary, when I googled, on Obama that was insightful and informative, of his tactics. This person was brought up by a grandfather who was a Fabian socialist. He will and is playing on propagandizing the "public good" . He inherited $700 billion in assests in our banks. And he wants to herald in health care, which he will not do outright, as that would be too blatant of the ultimate goal, complete and total take-over of the health care industry. It will be done by starving the private sector. No business can survive without incentives, which are benefits for staying in business. If government makes so many demands upon business, then motivation, morale, and money all suffer.
Healthcare is only one area of government control. We already have partial nationalization of our banking industry. They want to enlarge big government and make people dependent on government and not take self-responsibility.
I am gravely concerned, as many are not even aware of what is happening, but when they become aware, I am afraid it will be too late. Fabian Socialism is an elitist way of breeding co-operation of the peasant class.
Human rights will no longer be forefront and center, as it will be deemed special priviledge for those who are educated beyond the "common". And the dangerous aspect about all of it is that elitism was the rationale for Hitler to do "away" with the "inferior person". Inferior persons cease to have rights, because they don't measure up to the standard of elitism.
Fabian Socialist are the "Third Way" to attain approval from those whose lives will ultimately depend upon them. Fabian socialist are deemed to be the social engineers, the revolutionaries in reformer's clothing. Fabian Socialist will breed unity around our "common crisis", defend the need to do "major surgury" on our economy, then call for sacrifice for the "common good", while wielding the power of the media to control and educate the public "for their own sake" and for the interests of the nation. We see all of this happening before our eyes.
This is nothing other than public economic scourging. And the demise of our great nation will be the result.
There was one commentary, when I googled, on Obama that was insightful and informative, of his tactics. This person was brought up by a grandfather who was a Fabian socialist. He will and is playing on propagandizing the "public good" . He inherited $700 billion in assests in our banks. And he wants to herald in health care, which he will not do outright, as that would be too blatant of the ultimate goal, complete and total take-over of the health care industry. It will be done by starving the private sector. No business can survive without incentives, which are benefits for staying in business. If government makes so many demands upon business, then motivation, morale, and money all suffer.
Healthcare is only one area of government control. We already have partial nationalization of our banking industry. They want to enlarge big government and make people dependent on government and not take self-responsibility.
I am gravely concerned, as many are not even aware of what is happening, but when they become aware, I am afraid it will be too late. Fabian Socialism is an elitist way of breeding co-operation of the peasant class.
Human rights will no longer be forefront and center, as it will be deemed special priviledge for those who are educated beyond the "common". And the dangerous aspect about all of it is that elitism was the rationale for Hitler to do "away" with the "inferior person". Inferior persons cease to have rights, because they don't measure up to the standard of elitism.
Fabian Socialist are the "Third Way" to attain approval from those whose lives will ultimately depend upon them. Fabian socialist are deemed to be the social engineers, the revolutionaries in reformer's clothing. Fabian Socialist will breed unity around our "common crisis", defend the need to do "major surgury" on our economy, then call for sacrifice for the "common good", while wielding the power of the media to control and educate the public "for their own sake" and for the interests of the nation. We see all of this happening before our eyes.
This is nothing other than public economic scourging. And the demise of our great nation will be the result.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
