Jazz Correlates to American "Faith"

Jazz in its free expression, is also how Americans  and the Founders have viewed  "faith". We believe in liberty of conscience, and value diverse interests. We won't be defined by a "one size fits all" faith. Faith remains undefined according to the First Amendment. Government is not to define "faith", or interfere with "faith". Liberty of conscience defines "faith". And that is, "free association" of value, in individual choice.

America is basically a Protestant nation, so we aren't defined by Roman Catholicism, nor are we to be defined by fundmentalism, because Americans basically are independent from authoritarian understandings in regards to faith. But, the fundamentalists, or those that think "faith" has lost its value, have begun to try to re-define our liberty of conscience along their lines of  their particular understanding. This is nothing less than limiting another in their understanding and value, in regards to "faith" and its claims.Therefore, we have the "culture war" we have today, in regards to "faith" and American government. We must not define another's faith, unless we want to promote a militaristic "faith" that terrorizes others that might have different convictions.

The Political Is the Real

Tonight Glenn Beck discussed "restoring" America.  But, unlike some of his past programs, I disagreed as to how this is to come about. His was a vision of spiritual renewal, and commitment from citizens to re-align themselves.

While I do agree no one should try to control another in a free society, the only one they really have control over is themself, I do not agree that spiritualizing "self-governance", is imperative. Why would I say this?

Augustine was the one who transformed the Christian vision to the "other world".  His "vision" was the world of the transcendent God, who prepared the "City of God". And this "world" was to give hope to those who'd been disappointed when Rome was destroyed. Hopefully, this will not be the case for America. And today, man himself is the point of question, as evolution has trumped special creation. The focus today is on "man", not God.

Many have tried to implement Marxist "class envy and warfare" into our public discourse, which has done nothing other than divide our nation over envious feelings about material gain. The purpose, I imagine is the "redistribution of wealth" so poverty is addressed. The issue of poverty is not what America has been about. America has understood herself as a land of opportunity and prosperity. A land where people could find their own "way of life".  America's "hope" has been political freedom. But, now, our political freedom has brought about division not just over how money should be "handled" (by the individual or the government), but also how we should treat our enemies.

Those that have an idealistic view of man affirm "love", as the Christian/humanist mandate. Love is not the practical terminology or actual requirement of political action. Love is a personal term, while other terms such as duty, or responsibility fit more appropriately in the political realm.

The question that divides again is over what is our responsibility or duty as American citizens? Is our responsibility for the whole world, or is it for our nation? And then, is our responsibility over those in poverty, addictions, criminal behavior, or what? All of us cannot be concerned and focused on the same issues if our country and how the world's needs are to be met. This is why how one understands and commits is dependent on what one values most and why.

 Is our responsibility for our nation, or for our families? or both? It has often been said that the nation is only as strong as its families. And this is true, I believe. Other matters that concern our nation are matters that will always divide our nation, even, "Christian" citizens. Is the political or real world policies not more important, than the transcendent? I believe so. Nothing impacts the child more than their family of origin, and this arena has also become politicized. It is no longer the parent who must raise their child, but the State. ( And yet, I know that there are those parents who will not do right by the child, in regards to giving the child the best opportunity to succeed. Should the State intervene? And how?)

I am weary of faith, culture, and politics, as I think it has been a useful tool in the hands of the empowered at the disadvantage/discrimination of the "Christian". Values have been defined for the "Christian" by others, so that these will fit their mold, opinion or value. So, being "human" is a more important value for/to me, than "being a Christian", as being 'human" recognizes that I have common needs, desires, and opinions, as any other person.  Being a Christian, only means that there are others that define your life by their own standards and demand obedience to what they find is "ultimate".

I find the "ultimate" in our American culture, where individual liberty is valued and protected.

Political Ideology, Theology, and " Black Power"

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?

Ethics, Morality, and Universiality

I listened to a professor of Ethics from Princeton U. on the radio today. He was suggesting that we have a moral obligation to alleviate "world poverty". This suggests or assumes that world poverty can be alleviated, and also suggests that the only moral question is one of poverty.

These "moral universalists" impose thier views or convictions on others, just as much as those who want to legislate their personal moral convictions, say, about gay marriage, or abortion. Laws are made to impose moral action. Those with religious convictions are of course divided as to what is of most importance, in a world that is filled with complex issues.

Our nation has been generous in humanitarian aid, but that aid has been limited by immoral governments. Government determine, control and demand certain actions, while prohibiting and limiting others. A moral government must not limit individual choice, otherwise, it becomes a dominating, limiting, and oppressive government. Our nation has given 2%, while most other nations have given much less.

Social moralists are socialistic and Marxist in ideological commitments. These ideological commitments are regimes that make us all poor. This is proven historically.

Moral outrage should never drive our policy or legislation. But, these "moral universalists" demand that others have the same conviction and commitment and, Ulitmately, the same political view of implementation. "Welcome to "globalism"...

Moral univeralism limits personal responsibility and hinders freedom of expression and opinion. Governments then become "run" or led by those whose views are uniform, which ultimately makes for a communistic view of governing.

Diverse views promote and allow academic freedom, individual and personal freedom, and benefits man through creative ways of taking responsibility for their own life in innovative ways of making a living. Otherwise, the free market is limited, by government controls, and demands, which limits productivity and the ability to produce and to give.

Marxism has never led to the betterment of mankind, but in a world that is seeking for a way to understand altruism in an evolutionary world, there are no easy answers. But, usually, these believe that man must be responsible in planning how altrusim should be developed. Self interest is the epitome of "social sin".

Although I do not condone pursuing the "Almighty Dollar", pursuit is a relative term. Absolutism in the domain of morality is nothing less than domination by government control, which is immoral itself, as there must be moral choice and responsibility for there to be any moral value!