There are many needs that are pressing upon our globe today, which ones will make the "cut" as the ultimate need? Moral sentiment usually drives what people claim are the moral imperatives. Such sentiment is one's personal desired outcomes. And these are driven by prioritizing personal values, even the "objective ones".
Humanists value human rights as a universal standard. These people have chosen to universalize Western cultural values. But, the United Nations has made exception to Islam, giving them the right to Islamic law. How can two conflicting values be held by an organization? Don't we have to make discriminations about what is of ultimate value and how do we do that?
Neuroscientists have argued that our brains determine much of what we desire and value. Is the brain determined by one's cultural experiences or is the brain innatedly endowed with certain desires?
Obviously, all humans have the need for sustenance. Physical needs are not choices of value, but are objective needs. Humanists would be driven to meet these needs as of foremost importance. But, what of emotional needs and attachments? Are these just as important?
In Maslow's hierarchy of needs, such needs are secondary to physical needs. And this is where we find America today, debating what is needed in our nation's budget. One politician claimed that we could not cut entitlement spending, as it was "immoral". And that there are some things that are moral imperatives. These moral imperatives are driven by moral sentiment. Emotion drives such "entitlement" speak. Whereas, our budget deficit cannot be ignored. This is a moral imperative driven by reason, not sentiment! Isn't this more important than particular situations that might call for intervention? Our nation's viability is at stake! But, what is to come of a budget, when elected officials can "walk out" of negotiating and perservering in a job they were elected to do?
Those that want to play on moral sentiment, play upon religious values and emotionally driven goals by appealing to the "Golden Rule". Those that get their desired outcomes are those that have planned on using such emotional appeal to sway the "common man" to to their bidding. And usually their bidding is not chosen "up front" in the full light of day, but driven by the need to control or manipulate the "mob" so social order can be maintained. Such "Systems" are totaltaliarian. They are driven by elites for the "common good", but not the personal good of those under them. "Personal" ceases to have meaning or value, because it is independent of "theWhole", which is more valued than the "Parts".
Scientists value the physical universe. Its resources are of ultimate concern. But, physcial resources must be prioritized as to ultimate value, don't they? And what of the conflicting ways in which to approach limited resources and how to use them and create alternatives that might benefit "the Whole"? Who determines what policy will be made? And what outcomes will be of ultimate value or concern? Are Americans allowed to drill for oil, as other countries? Are we going to be allowed to drill for oil irregardless of environmental concerns for wildlife? Is the individual human of more value than other life forms? Or are all life forms or equal value?
If one values the nation-state, then there are priorities that must come first, irregadless of sentiment. Our nation's security is at stake, if we cannot maintain viability! Who will be at the helm of power then? Will we dissolve the nation-state for good, for a "common government"? Hasn't experience taught us that Bigger Government leads to more corruption because of an inability to make accountable such a "system"? Wasn't our Constitution even debated in our early years, because of such a belief? How then, can we think that liberalizing the world will bring about a "better way of life" for all? How do we know? What has history taught us?
My husband was expressing his desire for a certain endeavor that he felt would not be appreciated, acknowledged or valued by others. I encouraged him to attain his goal, irrespective of anything else, as such a desire was a matter of integrity and his own "honor and sense of being true to himself". Such "self-affirming" choice could not be made in a totalitarian system, because such "self affirming" ways of thinking and being in the world would be considered "selfish" , by those that want him to do "their bidding". But, I think such "selfishness" is a point of character. "Character" must be defined within the context of the "self", for there to be a "grounded self". Character that is evaluated by others might be applauded or dissapproved based on some other value, outside of "principled character". One might not value what he chooses, but they must applaud his commitment to it, IF they value a liberal democracy and human rights.
It seems that what is "moral" has been a useful term for many reasons. An ultimate and important value is the individual's right to exist and choose his own way of life, which is what a Democracy allows, and our Republic demands its Representatives uphold those values in it legislative powers!
Showing posts with label Representative Republic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Representative Republic. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Monday, February 28, 2011
Which Is It? Balancing Power or Abuse of Power
What is the difference in the balance or power or abuse of power?
The balancing of power is a horozonal view based upon separate functions, but equal distribution of power. Balncing power means that the separate branches of government are protected from conflicts of interest. Jefferson moved the Supreme Court from the Capitol building for this very reason. Balncing power is about democracy, and human rights, while abuse of power doesn't maintain that power is equally distributed. Power just is. And unchecked power, or power without any limits makes for the "abuse of power".
Abuse of power is about hierarchal view of organizational structuring of society, or government. Such is the Republican form of government that America was founded upon. The principle of leadership, that is
representative. We are a government "by and for the people".
Power is about money, position, influence, information, and knowledge. And such aspects of power are useful to protect the individual from those that might be unscrupulous in their use of power. Power can be represented by groups or an indivdual. But, groups that have collective influence, inside information and money, are the foudations of corrupt government. Corrupt government do not represent "the people", but themselves, in insider trading, protecting each other's backs and outright pay-offs and bribery.
In America, we have laws that protect "the little guy" from such corruption. Our very form of government is the "rule of law". We are "a people" that is ruled by law and not a King/Divine. And the law is equally binding on every individual. It is what protects all of our interests, when we value "the rule of law" and its protections, because the law is to balance power and prevent "abuse of power".
The balancing of power is a horozonal view based upon separate functions, but equal distribution of power. Balncing power means that the separate branches of government are protected from conflicts of interest. Jefferson moved the Supreme Court from the Capitol building for this very reason. Balncing power is about democracy, and human rights, while abuse of power doesn't maintain that power is equally distributed. Power just is. And unchecked power, or power without any limits makes for the "abuse of power".
Abuse of power is about hierarchal view of organizational structuring of society, or government. Such is the Republican form of government that America was founded upon. The principle of leadership, that is
representative. We are a government "by and for the people".
Power is about money, position, influence, information, and knowledge. And such aspects of power are useful to protect the individual from those that might be unscrupulous in their use of power. Power can be represented by groups or an indivdual. But, groups that have collective influence, inside information and money, are the foudations of corrupt government. Corrupt government do not represent "the people", but themselves, in insider trading, protecting each other's backs and outright pay-offs and bribery.
In America, we have laws that protect "the little guy" from such corruption. Our very form of government is the "rule of law". We are "a people" that is ruled by law and not a King/Divine. And the law is equally binding on every individual. It is what protects all of our interests, when we value "the rule of law" and its protections, because the law is to balance power and prevent "abuse of power".
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Is Law Our Basis?
The rule of law is the basis of maintaining order in our society. Our Constitutional Republic is understood as a representative government where the individual and religious liberty was an important value.
The problem today is when our nation-state has been impacted and threatened by those who voice their "religious right" to undermine our humane laws.
Right now, the Supreme Court will rule on whether the Baptist Church had a right to religious speech when they caused emotional pain to the parents at their son's funeral.
When other religious "speech" such as terrorists acts are committed against our society, we treat them as criminals. Should there be a distinction between the nation-state's right and the individual's right? Is the individual a private citizen, or a public pawn? Where do we draw our distinctions? Weren't we basically a Judeo-Christian nation in our earliest days? We have affirmed both public responsibility and the private right of citizens. Which one will win in the end? The tension must be maintained if we want to continue to have religious freedom and private lives.
Our laws are not based on "God", but are based on the individual's right to his "own person". How does a humane nation uphold the "rule of law" and yet, allow religious liberty to those that undermine that law? Don't we hold them accountable to the law for the sake of our society? Or is freedom of speech too important a value to undermine? If we go down the road of limiting speech, then won't it undermine most speech in the end?
While our laws are not based solely on "God", neither are the values of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness based on science.
Just recently, there was a British "commercial" for an organization that promotes Climate Control. In that "commercial" the teacher is asking if her students would choose to further the flourishing of mankind through limiting their comsumption of energy and the emission of "gases". Would they take public transportation? Two of these students stood up to such governmental control over their choice. The teacher affirmed their right of choice, but in the end, pushes a button that kills them, splattering their blood on the others in the classroom.
This "outrage" of inhumanity is not the only 'outrage", as it was shown on a talk show recently, in Britian, that a well-known scientist suggested that she would smother her child, rather than allow the child to suffer. There was obvious discomfort from the interviewer to her response. The question was asked again, but the scientist still held to her view that it was important to protect her child from suffering by killing.
Whether Western society survives the onslaught of religious fanaticism or scientific positivism is the question. The West is at a crossroads to what our future will be and how we will go forward, or will we be destroyed?
The problem today is when our nation-state has been impacted and threatened by those who voice their "religious right" to undermine our humane laws.
Right now, the Supreme Court will rule on whether the Baptist Church had a right to religious speech when they caused emotional pain to the parents at their son's funeral.
When other religious "speech" such as terrorists acts are committed against our society, we treat them as criminals. Should there be a distinction between the nation-state's right and the individual's right? Is the individual a private citizen, or a public pawn? Where do we draw our distinctions? Weren't we basically a Judeo-Christian nation in our earliest days? We have affirmed both public responsibility and the private right of citizens. Which one will win in the end? The tension must be maintained if we want to continue to have religious freedom and private lives.
Our laws are not based on "God", but are based on the individual's right to his "own person". How does a humane nation uphold the "rule of law" and yet, allow religious liberty to those that undermine that law? Don't we hold them accountable to the law for the sake of our society? Or is freedom of speech too important a value to undermine? If we go down the road of limiting speech, then won't it undermine most speech in the end?
While our laws are not based solely on "God", neither are the values of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness based on science.
Just recently, there was a British "commercial" for an organization that promotes Climate Control. In that "commercial" the teacher is asking if her students would choose to further the flourishing of mankind through limiting their comsumption of energy and the emission of "gases". Would they take public transportation? Two of these students stood up to such governmental control over their choice. The teacher affirmed their right of choice, but in the end, pushes a button that kills them, splattering their blood on the others in the classroom.
This "outrage" of inhumanity is not the only 'outrage", as it was shown on a talk show recently, in Britian, that a well-known scientist suggested that she would smother her child, rather than allow the child to suffer. There was obvious discomfort from the interviewer to her response. The question was asked again, but the scientist still held to her view that it was important to protect her child from suffering by killing.
Whether Western society survives the onslaught of religious fanaticism or scientific positivism is the question. The West is at a crossroads to what our future will be and how we will go forward, or will we be destroyed?
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Neither Church or State
I believe that neither Church or State should have authority, or pre-eminence over the individual and his life choices.
Individuals need to have the liberty to find their own way in the world, and how they "fit". But, because the individual is not alone in the world, the State is necessary. Government should seek to order society so that the individual can have liberty to define his own life. Government creates the laws to uphold the rights of individual liberty, so that justice can be for "all". A just society can be no less.
Liberty must be the foremost value is one values a free society, where individuals are valued in their own right. Otherwise, some other value is more important, such as God or society, itself. This is when authoritarianism whether the State, or Spiritual "Elders" are Rulers and dictators over the individual conscience. These kinds of governments demand obedience of individual consciences to their brand or form of "virtue", whether it be for the poor, the destitute, or dis-enfranchised. And these social "concerns" are useful for the empowered class to "use" other individuals in sevitude to their 'agenda'.
All individuals will not find that their agenda will be implemented, but laws should protect the rights of others, so that Rulers will not become oppressors, in the name of their agenda. We are, after all, a Representative Republic.
Individuals need to have the liberty to find their own way in the world, and how they "fit". But, because the individual is not alone in the world, the State is necessary. Government should seek to order society so that the individual can have liberty to define his own life. Government creates the laws to uphold the rights of individual liberty, so that justice can be for "all". A just society can be no less.
Liberty must be the foremost value is one values a free society, where individuals are valued in their own right. Otherwise, some other value is more important, such as God or society, itself. This is when authoritarianism whether the State, or Spiritual "Elders" are Rulers and dictators over the individual conscience. These kinds of governments demand obedience of individual consciences to their brand or form of "virtue", whether it be for the poor, the destitute, or dis-enfranchised. And these social "concerns" are useful for the empowered class to "use" other individuals in sevitude to their 'agenda'.
All individuals will not find that their agenda will be implemented, but laws should protect the rights of others, so that Rulers will not become oppressors, in the name of their agenda. We are, after all, a Representative Republic.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
A "Christian" Vision and the Pioneer's Goal
Christians have agendas that they think will "save the world". Scientific materialists also have agendas that will "save the planet". Both think that their way of understanding humanity, the world and what is "right" is the most important and valuable, otherwise, "the world will go to hell in a handbasket". These are radicals that tend to think they must convert everyone in sight to their way of thinking.
While Christians have traditionally understood their truth as supernaturally revealed, the scientists know that thier truth is based on the facts of 'realtiy". Both suggest that the transcendent or the immanant is where truth is "real", bringing us to the culture wars of today in America.
America was founded because of the disrespect of the British government in demanding a tax on those who were revolting against the Church of England. These had sought a country where they could worship God freely without 'state regulations' that they found repugnant because of the King's divorce and dissassociation from Catholicism.
Others had sought out the country for the adventure of developing a distant land and making it their own. Their was a more material goal.
The Founders had a "whale" of a problem in forming a "more perfect union" without alerting the overly scrupulous in inhibiting the way they wanted to worship God, while allowing free enterprise to become a reality in the "new world". Very different goals and purposes formed our union.
Today, Americans fight over which was "right". Which truth in history formed the Founders thoughts in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Both did.
We are a nation that is formed by man's desire to flourish in developing the land and material goods that this country provided. The Dutch made use of New York and called it "New Amsterdam". There is absolutely nothing wrong with economic prosperity, it is our country's heritage. And the free market has benefitted our society with prosperity beyond measure.
The Christian "ideal" is a "morally grounded" govenment, which they found in the Constitution that defended their right of free expression or worship. Today, though, it has gotten into areas that have not been defined by science, so much as the right to liberty. Liberty threatens the religiously conscientious, as they fear dishonoring God, or offending the Holy Spirit. These tend to want to defend "God's honor" by legislating their conscience. This was never the Founder's intent, I believe.
The First Ammendment was formed to protect religious institutions from interference of government. America did not want to form another 'state church". The provision in our Constitution of the Separation of Church and State was to formalize this conviction. But, where the early believers in America found solace in this freedom which was their ultimate value, today's church has gotten wind of the 'free enterprise' adventure to form corporations. The mixture of these values (religious freedom and the free enterprise) must still be affirmed under liberty of conscience.
Our country must defend the rights of a liberal democracy and uphold the standards of a Representative Republic, so that both the educated, uneducated, the religious and irreligious can be unified in a diverse climate, which the Founders "saw" and formed under the "rule of law".
While Christians have traditionally understood their truth as supernaturally revealed, the scientists know that thier truth is based on the facts of 'realtiy". Both suggest that the transcendent or the immanant is where truth is "real", bringing us to the culture wars of today in America.
America was founded because of the disrespect of the British government in demanding a tax on those who were revolting against the Church of England. These had sought a country where they could worship God freely without 'state regulations' that they found repugnant because of the King's divorce and dissassociation from Catholicism.
Others had sought out the country for the adventure of developing a distant land and making it their own. Their was a more material goal.
The Founders had a "whale" of a problem in forming a "more perfect union" without alerting the overly scrupulous in inhibiting the way they wanted to worship God, while allowing free enterprise to become a reality in the "new world". Very different goals and purposes formed our union.
Today, Americans fight over which was "right". Which truth in history formed the Founders thoughts in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Both did.
We are a nation that is formed by man's desire to flourish in developing the land and material goods that this country provided. The Dutch made use of New York and called it "New Amsterdam". There is absolutely nothing wrong with economic prosperity, it is our country's heritage. And the free market has benefitted our society with prosperity beyond measure.
The Christian "ideal" is a "morally grounded" govenment, which they found in the Constitution that defended their right of free expression or worship. Today, though, it has gotten into areas that have not been defined by science, so much as the right to liberty. Liberty threatens the religiously conscientious, as they fear dishonoring God, or offending the Holy Spirit. These tend to want to defend "God's honor" by legislating their conscience. This was never the Founder's intent, I believe.
The First Ammendment was formed to protect religious institutions from interference of government. America did not want to form another 'state church". The provision in our Constitution of the Separation of Church and State was to formalize this conviction. But, where the early believers in America found solace in this freedom which was their ultimate value, today's church has gotten wind of the 'free enterprise' adventure to form corporations. The mixture of these values (religious freedom and the free enterprise) must still be affirmed under liberty of conscience.
Our country must defend the rights of a liberal democracy and uphold the standards of a Representative Republic, so that both the educated, uneducated, the religious and irreligious can be unified in a diverse climate, which the Founders "saw" and formed under the "rule of law".
Sunday, October 25, 2009
"Animal Nature" and Human Values
The naturalists believe that humans must be trained, just like any other animal, to "do what is right". Their understanding of "right" is whatever they think will fulfill "ultimate value". And sometimes they seek to undermine another "right" (or another's "right") to justify what they consider "ultimate".
What is "ultimate value"? Today the politically correct value the environment, redistribution of wealth for the sake of the poor, the elimination of power for the sake of equality, and the "whole" at the expense of the "part". Globalism takes the place of the "Nation-State" in this way of thinking.
Each politically correct value is upheld as a universal value, for the "common good" of humanity. The problem of veiwing one's personal "ultimate value" as a universal, is the devaluing of the other side of the paradox of "truth", which hinders democratic discourse in freedom of speech and thought. Tyranny is the result of suppressing dissent.
When one values the environment as the "ultimate", then other values, such as human life, is devalued. Humans are considered the "pollutants", who should be limited or eliminated.
The "ultimate value" of alleviating poverty does not take into consideration the way the market works in appealing to "human nature" and inevitably leads to furthering poverty, rather than alleviating it. This is not to say that capitalism does not have its downfalls, in regards to human nature, but it is the best way to further personal responsibility that flourishes corporate "need".
The "ultimate value" of eliminating power dissolves leadership of the means of determining policy decisions. America's Founders did not eliminate power, but balanced power through division of functions. And the "checks and balances" to power from this division is what has "protected" our nation from overt corruption.
I do not believe that "wholism" is a "better" way of viewing life, as it presumes too much. No human, group, or society can make absolute claims of "wholistic" understanding, as we are bound within our limitaions of context, personal history, private ability, personal interests and potentiality.
The only "ultimate" is the individual, because the individual is the universal particularized. And the "universal" particularized is "Wisdom" personified. And the best way for individual particularization (individuation) is our "way of life" in a democratic Republic.
What is "ultimate value"? Today the politically correct value the environment, redistribution of wealth for the sake of the poor, the elimination of power for the sake of equality, and the "whole" at the expense of the "part". Globalism takes the place of the "Nation-State" in this way of thinking.
Each politically correct value is upheld as a universal value, for the "common good" of humanity. The problem of veiwing one's personal "ultimate value" as a universal, is the devaluing of the other side of the paradox of "truth", which hinders democratic discourse in freedom of speech and thought. Tyranny is the result of suppressing dissent.
When one values the environment as the "ultimate", then other values, such as human life, is devalued. Humans are considered the "pollutants", who should be limited or eliminated.
The "ultimate value" of alleviating poverty does not take into consideration the way the market works in appealing to "human nature" and inevitably leads to furthering poverty, rather than alleviating it. This is not to say that capitalism does not have its downfalls, in regards to human nature, but it is the best way to further personal responsibility that flourishes corporate "need".
The "ultimate value" of eliminating power dissolves leadership of the means of determining policy decisions. America's Founders did not eliminate power, but balanced power through division of functions. And the "checks and balances" to power from this division is what has "protected" our nation from overt corruption.
I do not believe that "wholism" is a "better" way of viewing life, as it presumes too much. No human, group, or society can make absolute claims of "wholistic" understanding, as we are bound within our limitaions of context, personal history, private ability, personal interests and potentiality.
The only "ultimate" is the individual, because the individual is the universal particularized. And the "universal" particularized is "Wisdom" personified. And the best way for individual particularization (individuation) is our "way of life" in a democratic Republic.
Friday, October 2, 2009
The Sacred and Secular Faith
Religion exists because we define and distinguish between the sacred and secular. But, what if everything is seen as sacred, if used in the proper way? Isn't this view looking at life as graced?
Why do the religious have to make distinctions? Is it because the religious love to think they are especially special? Ot that their group is more holy or 'true" to Christian faith than another? Are these distinctions because this is how every group defines themselves...in contrast to another group?
Why do the religious need to feel special? Is it because they were never special in their families of origin? Is it because this is what they have always been taught and have always believed?
I think that evangelical faith is taught and caught, but it is mainly emotionally driven and experienctially focused. There is no real substance to evangelical faith. And evangelicals believe that this is good, because reason is suspect.
I remember taking a course 10 years ago. The professor was teaching on "biblical Chsitianity" and I remember wondering why he added "biblical" to Christian, as if there was any other kind of Christian.
This course set "secular philosophy" over against "biblical revelation". Tertullion's "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem" was the 'battle cry of this course. "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church", etc. This view sacralizes sacrifice, and marginalizes philosophy.
This view sets up a dichotomy to faith and reason. This is supernaturalism's strength and many denominations believe in this type of 'Christian faith'.
Another view is that nature itself is graced. This view does not see human nature as totally depraved and in need of supernatural rescue, but a deprivation of nature that needs nurture and grace. One is a Reformed Protestant view, while the other is a more Catholic view.
As I have been thinking about faith and reason, I have come to the conclusion that there can be no universal way that an individual develops faith. But, I think that if one comes to faith through personal experience, where revelation was of primary importance, then there is need for a develpment of reaon's need of development. Reason can be the friend of faith, because it is grounded in the "real world".
Students that come to our university can sometimes be idealistic and think that there is something "more" special about a radical faith that is separated from the 'real world" or separated from rationale or reason. This is where I believe that professors and mentors can help these young adults to understand their faith in a broader way. This is important, otherwise, some may never develop their unique gifts and much would be lost to the world.
Evangelicals can be prime culprits of this kind of thinking because evangelicalism is grounded in experience and revelation, at the expense of reason and traditon.
I think the answer is understanding how reason can be grounded in the real world and be faithful to faith, is found in our form of government, a Representative Republic. And this grounding allows faith individual expression and conscience, while the proper use of power is balanced across three branches of government. The individual has a choice or voice in the process of their representation. Otherwise, one is determined under a "Sovereign" supernaturalistic, super-intending God, without personal choice. And choice is of primary importance in the theme of 'freedom'. And freedom is what justice is about.
Why do the religious have to make distinctions? Is it because the religious love to think they are especially special? Ot that their group is more holy or 'true" to Christian faith than another? Are these distinctions because this is how every group defines themselves...in contrast to another group?
Why do the religious need to feel special? Is it because they were never special in their families of origin? Is it because this is what they have always been taught and have always believed?
I think that evangelical faith is taught and caught, but it is mainly emotionally driven and experienctially focused. There is no real substance to evangelical faith. And evangelicals believe that this is good, because reason is suspect.
I remember taking a course 10 years ago. The professor was teaching on "biblical Chsitianity" and I remember wondering why he added "biblical" to Christian, as if there was any other kind of Christian.
This course set "secular philosophy" over against "biblical revelation". Tertullion's "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem" was the 'battle cry of this course. "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church", etc. This view sacralizes sacrifice, and marginalizes philosophy.
This view sets up a dichotomy to faith and reason. This is supernaturalism's strength and many denominations believe in this type of 'Christian faith'.
Another view is that nature itself is graced. This view does not see human nature as totally depraved and in need of supernatural rescue, but a deprivation of nature that needs nurture and grace. One is a Reformed Protestant view, while the other is a more Catholic view.
As I have been thinking about faith and reason, I have come to the conclusion that there can be no universal way that an individual develops faith. But, I think that if one comes to faith through personal experience, where revelation was of primary importance, then there is need for a develpment of reaon's need of development. Reason can be the friend of faith, because it is grounded in the "real world".
Students that come to our university can sometimes be idealistic and think that there is something "more" special about a radical faith that is separated from the 'real world" or separated from rationale or reason. This is where I believe that professors and mentors can help these young adults to understand their faith in a broader way. This is important, otherwise, some may never develop their unique gifts and much would be lost to the world.
Evangelicals can be prime culprits of this kind of thinking because evangelicalism is grounded in experience and revelation, at the expense of reason and traditon.
I think the answer is understanding how reason can be grounded in the real world and be faithful to faith, is found in our form of government, a Representative Republic. And this grounding allows faith individual expression and conscience, while the proper use of power is balanced across three branches of government. The individual has a choice or voice in the process of their representation. Otherwise, one is determined under a "Sovereign" supernaturalistic, super-intending God, without personal choice. And choice is of primary importance in the theme of 'freedom'. And freedom is what justice is about.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
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?
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?
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Politicizing and Politicing
I have become a skeptic that anything happens apart from politics. This brings me to the point of questionig the present political situation and policies.
Does anyone believe that we are to be responsible citizens and accountable to the laws that rule our land? Is this what being a Christian is about? Or is being a Christian about allowing others to be irresponsible?
Are we to look the other way when there is dishonesty, hyposcrisy, and abuse of power in our leaders? Are we to be honored as citizens in a representative republic by being informed of the discussions on policy and our "voices" considered in the process?
I think that the whole healthcare concern is a passionate ideological grab for power over the American people. And it is being done in a dishonest and power driven way. This is not what our country should be about.
Our economy is suffering under "social concerns". Warren Buffet has warned that we are headed to be a "banana Republic" if we do not turn back this downturn. But, the economy has been demonized as "greed", "love of money" and self-centeredness. Is this "blanket statement", really true across the board? Are Americans greedy, money hungry, self-centered individuals?
We have seen our country's economy "politicized" and our very founding principles undermined for the "common good". We were founded on individual right of conscience. The conscience of religious freedom and public interest. But, the "public interest", is not what is now called the "common good", as we were never a "socialist republic".
Healthcare is being politicized on a "moral basis" of "taking care of the poor". While we have built our nation on hard work and reward, we see our country being "called into question". While there is no doubt that Wall Street and others have mis-used our system to the detriment of all, we cannot throw the "baby out with the bath water".
I am concerned for our country's future and hope that our leaders will listen, as well as govern. We are not a people that is used to submission at the costs of "voice".
Does anyone believe that we are to be responsible citizens and accountable to the laws that rule our land? Is this what being a Christian is about? Or is being a Christian about allowing others to be irresponsible?
Are we to look the other way when there is dishonesty, hyposcrisy, and abuse of power in our leaders? Are we to be honored as citizens in a representative republic by being informed of the discussions on policy and our "voices" considered in the process?
I think that the whole healthcare concern is a passionate ideological grab for power over the American people. And it is being done in a dishonest and power driven way. This is not what our country should be about.
Our economy is suffering under "social concerns". Warren Buffet has warned that we are headed to be a "banana Republic" if we do not turn back this downturn. But, the economy has been demonized as "greed", "love of money" and self-centeredness. Is this "blanket statement", really true across the board? Are Americans greedy, money hungry, self-centered individuals?
We have seen our country's economy "politicized" and our very founding principles undermined for the "common good". We were founded on individual right of conscience. The conscience of religious freedom and public interest. But, the "public interest", is not what is now called the "common good", as we were never a "socialist republic".
Healthcare is being politicized on a "moral basis" of "taking care of the poor". While we have built our nation on hard work and reward, we see our country being "called into question". While there is no doubt that Wall Street and others have mis-used our system to the detriment of all, we cannot throw the "baby out with the bath water".
I am concerned for our country's future and hope that our leaders will listen, as well as govern. We are not a people that is used to submission at the costs of "voice".
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Names, Meaning and Value
"Dem dat's fighten words" is a common colloqualism. Words have meanings. And meanings define values. These are the things that life is "made of". And this is why there is so much diversity in the world. I couldn't live without diversity. Life would be dull and colorless. I just "react" to those who think their meanings are ultimate and absolute, because they de-value the diversity that makes life valuable.
Last night my grand-daughter was here. She is almost 3. She is confident and very "dramatic". I love to engage her. But, last night I was not cognizant of "where she was" and she ended up crying.why and how did this happen?
I began to point to others of her family members and give them different "names". I pointed to myself and said 'Mommy". She started out with "correcting me", but started to look befuddled and then began to cry. I recognized this as an indication that I was "confusing her world". She had names that defined people and they were defined by the roles that they signified. I was asking for her to think beyond her capabilities. So, of course, we brought comfort to her.
The challenge to educators is to expand, enlarge and encourage growth in the intellectual realm. Educators exist in many areas of our world, not just in the academic. Educators seek to bring understanding and and expansion of knowledge, so that others can grow beyond their narrow definitions and narrow and limiting worldviews.
When someone asks "what is of ultimate value", the answer will depend upon how the person has been educated. Those indoctrinated into Christian faith will have different responses depending on their understanding of faith and how broad their exposure to Christian experience is. I find that religion, for the most part, does define one's life in narrow ways.
Conventional morality is about what 'tradition' says is "correct". But, is tradition right, necessarily? Or is tradition only an aspect to a cultural ideal or norm? What is of greatest value? God, humanity, life on this planet, the environment, healthcare, growth in knowledge? The answer will depend on one's highest values in life. Religious tradition defines the highest value on an understanding of faith, while education values knowledge, and scientific endeavor values medicine and other research opportunities.
Our country does not define another's life for them, as we believe that though the individual is a social animal, he is also an independent moral agent, that must decide for himself. The individual is given opportunities by the social contexts he exposes himself to and then is free to decide what is of ultimate value and importance. There is no "right and wrong" answer, as values are about clarity of purpose and vision for one's life.
This is why the value of our country in protecting freedom is of ultimate value to and for me. I value freedom because it means that the individual does not have to confine himself to another's definition of what constitutes "greatest value". Freedom means that the individual is guarunteed justice, because the individual is a reponsible moral agent that can determine his own course.
Usually "war" transpires when others are protecting their own values. Fear of another's intrusion upon the values most held dear become self-protective walls. But, how do we engage those whose worlds are so confining and defined, that they will not engage. Diversity is not a cultural value. In fact, diversity is the very name to be destroyed.
In our world climate, Obama seems to be making attempts to change the world through diplomatic efforts. This is a noble cause, but I question how diversity can be maintained when the "absolutist laws of Sharia" will not allow such diversity. Whenever one labels another's difference with "Satan", then one cannot be rationally engaged. Religion does not allow for rational engagement because it is based on emotional connection to cultural identification in behavoiral terms, as well as a specified view of "God". This is not change that will come to the radical through diplomatic engagement. And this is why it is necessary that leaders of countries are rationally engaged with affirming difference. We have done this in the past, but with devastating consequences. And in our world climate, where the enemy is not readily identified, how do we protect the values of freedom and diversity? Do we engage countries that are dictatorial? Can we trust these?
I personally "fear" what Obama is doing, as I do not trust those who hold absolute power. And leaders who identify with those who hold absolute power are also, IMO, also untrustworthy, because those who do not hold the value of freedom and justice for all, which is a holding to the "balance of power", do not hold to the values of a liberal democracy....or a Repreentative Republic. These are those that use position to bring change, but at a costs to those under them. And this is why there has been much discussion about the "czars" that are independently appointed by this administration.
Obama has African roots and he maintains that equality is a global issue, not just a national one. This is disturbing to me because national interests (The Constitution) is the pledge of the President to uphold the values determined by our Founders. Can a globalist do this and remain true and trustworthy to "his people".
This is my concern, as words have meaning, but we must question what meaning is made when we hear those that hold values that are in opposition to ours. Then, we can be more educated about how to engage the public for the public good.
Last night my grand-daughter was here. She is almost 3. She is confident and very "dramatic". I love to engage her. But, last night I was not cognizant of "where she was" and she ended up crying.why and how did this happen?
I began to point to others of her family members and give them different "names". I pointed to myself and said 'Mommy". She started out with "correcting me", but started to look befuddled and then began to cry. I recognized this as an indication that I was "confusing her world". She had names that defined people and they were defined by the roles that they signified. I was asking for her to think beyond her capabilities. So, of course, we brought comfort to her.
The challenge to educators is to expand, enlarge and encourage growth in the intellectual realm. Educators exist in many areas of our world, not just in the academic. Educators seek to bring understanding and and expansion of knowledge, so that others can grow beyond their narrow definitions and narrow and limiting worldviews.
When someone asks "what is of ultimate value", the answer will depend upon how the person has been educated. Those indoctrinated into Christian faith will have different responses depending on their understanding of faith and how broad their exposure to Christian experience is. I find that religion, for the most part, does define one's life in narrow ways.
Conventional morality is about what 'tradition' says is "correct". But, is tradition right, necessarily? Or is tradition only an aspect to a cultural ideal or norm? What is of greatest value? God, humanity, life on this planet, the environment, healthcare, growth in knowledge? The answer will depend on one's highest values in life. Religious tradition defines the highest value on an understanding of faith, while education values knowledge, and scientific endeavor values medicine and other research opportunities.
Our country does not define another's life for them, as we believe that though the individual is a social animal, he is also an independent moral agent, that must decide for himself. The individual is given opportunities by the social contexts he exposes himself to and then is free to decide what is of ultimate value and importance. There is no "right and wrong" answer, as values are about clarity of purpose and vision for one's life.
This is why the value of our country in protecting freedom is of ultimate value to and for me. I value freedom because it means that the individual does not have to confine himself to another's definition of what constitutes "greatest value". Freedom means that the individual is guarunteed justice, because the individual is a reponsible moral agent that can determine his own course.
Usually "war" transpires when others are protecting their own values. Fear of another's intrusion upon the values most held dear become self-protective walls. But, how do we engage those whose worlds are so confining and defined, that they will not engage. Diversity is not a cultural value. In fact, diversity is the very name to be destroyed.
In our world climate, Obama seems to be making attempts to change the world through diplomatic efforts. This is a noble cause, but I question how diversity can be maintained when the "absolutist laws of Sharia" will not allow such diversity. Whenever one labels another's difference with "Satan", then one cannot be rationally engaged. Religion does not allow for rational engagement because it is based on emotional connection to cultural identification in behavoiral terms, as well as a specified view of "God". This is not change that will come to the radical through diplomatic engagement. And this is why it is necessary that leaders of countries are rationally engaged with affirming difference. We have done this in the past, but with devastating consequences. And in our world climate, where the enemy is not readily identified, how do we protect the values of freedom and diversity? Do we engage countries that are dictatorial? Can we trust these?
I personally "fear" what Obama is doing, as I do not trust those who hold absolute power. And leaders who identify with those who hold absolute power are also, IMO, also untrustworthy, because those who do not hold the value of freedom and justice for all, which is a holding to the "balance of power", do not hold to the values of a liberal democracy....or a Repreentative Republic. These are those that use position to bring change, but at a costs to those under them. And this is why there has been much discussion about the "czars" that are independently appointed by this administration.
Obama has African roots and he maintains that equality is a global issue, not just a national one. This is disturbing to me because national interests (The Constitution) is the pledge of the President to uphold the values determined by our Founders. Can a globalist do this and remain true and trustworthy to "his people".
This is my concern, as words have meaning, but we must question what meaning is made when we hear those that hold values that are in opposition to ours. Then, we can be more educated about how to engage the public for the public good.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
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!
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!
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Power Politics and Freedom of Information
Knowledge is power and if you can keep others from knowing what is going on behind the scenes, then the people in the know can thrawt the social contract. I hope there are people aware of what is going on in our country to hold others accountable and not allow power to rule access to knowledge about our nation's business.
Social contract is the result of negotiating interests, coming to terms with differences, giving equal respect between employer and employee. A contract is a binding agreement of known variables. Our representatives are to represent the electorate's interests, not their own interests. But, it seems that sometimes interests collide and this is what power politics determines, who wins the argument. but, these arguments cannot be had, if power limits the discussion in the first place.
Social contract is based on democratic ideals, where reason is the cash of discussion. Woe be to those who live in societies where freedom of information is limited and power determines "what will be". We will no longer be free, but enslaved to those who think they do "what's right", because they are "in the know".
Social contract is the result of negotiating interests, coming to terms with differences, giving equal respect between employer and employee. A contract is a binding agreement of known variables. Our representatives are to represent the electorate's interests, not their own interests. But, it seems that sometimes interests collide and this is what power politics determines, who wins the argument. but, these arguments cannot be had, if power limits the discussion in the first place.
Social contract is based on democratic ideals, where reason is the cash of discussion. Woe be to those who live in societies where freedom of information is limited and power determines "what will be". We will no longer be free, but enslaved to those who think they do "what's right", because they are "in the know".
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
The Ideal S(s)tate
What is the ideal S(s)tate? An ideal state can only exist in an ideal State! Man is made to be free, while the State is to define proper boundaries of behavior (laws) for the ordering of society. An ideal state would allow enough freedom, so that the individual could choose amongst many valid values and goals.
In our world, we understand the importance of affirming human rights. It is only because governments are unjust that we agree to laws which define the rights of the individual, upholding and affirming dignity, which freedom guaruntees.
The Church cannot guaruntee human rights unless it refuses to identify "God" specifically. The Church should affirm and uphold the social structures that give a healthy environment for children to be raised, as well as a healthy and whole marriage where the partners are co-partners in God's grace of life. When God has been defined and identified by the Church's leadership too definitively, she has been used to intimidate and abuse individuals. The Church, after all, is defined by human membership and whatever "authority" that leadership determines defines the church. Human leadership have used their definitions of God and church to politicize their goals and sanitize their motives. The Church is a human instrument and is not an ideal State.
The State should consist of humans that agree upon the dignity of the individual. The individual should be the teleos of government. Each individual should be considered an equal member and an important part to the whole. While the individual is the goal of the group, the group must function within a framework of organizational structure. The organizational structure of our Representative Republic is the most ideal. While a Representative Republic is one aspect of governing over the structure, there must be a mutuality and accountability that is built within the structure, so the structure and governing leaders are accountable to the individuals they are to represent. But, as has been said that when the rulers start plundering the treasury for their own advantage, then we are in trouble. The Love of money is the root of all evil. This inordinate affection has led to the downfall of our Representative Republic and is the downfall of many in our country.
What then would hinder the self-interest that would be the inevitable outcome of a free society, and even one ruled by a distribution of power and a concern for the individual? The moral imperative to maintain society for one's own self-interest, as well as the other's self-interest would maintain a balance to our blindness when it comes to our own governance. Government should be understood to bring a healthy and whole ordered society for the individual and the family to function.
Therefore, the ideal State is run by leaders whose concern is for the country and not for self-interest alone. We must be a people that understands the importance of good government.
In our world, we understand the importance of affirming human rights. It is only because governments are unjust that we agree to laws which define the rights of the individual, upholding and affirming dignity, which freedom guaruntees.
The Church cannot guaruntee human rights unless it refuses to identify "God" specifically. The Church should affirm and uphold the social structures that give a healthy environment for children to be raised, as well as a healthy and whole marriage where the partners are co-partners in God's grace of life. When God has been defined and identified by the Church's leadership too definitively, she has been used to intimidate and abuse individuals. The Church, after all, is defined by human membership and whatever "authority" that leadership determines defines the church. Human leadership have used their definitions of God and church to politicize their goals and sanitize their motives. The Church is a human instrument and is not an ideal State.
The State should consist of humans that agree upon the dignity of the individual. The individual should be the teleos of government. Each individual should be considered an equal member and an important part to the whole. While the individual is the goal of the group, the group must function within a framework of organizational structure. The organizational structure of our Representative Republic is the most ideal. While a Representative Republic is one aspect of governing over the structure, there must be a mutuality and accountability that is built within the structure, so the structure and governing leaders are accountable to the individuals they are to represent. But, as has been said that when the rulers start plundering the treasury for their own advantage, then we are in trouble. The Love of money is the root of all evil. This inordinate affection has led to the downfall of our Representative Republic and is the downfall of many in our country.
What then would hinder the self-interest that would be the inevitable outcome of a free society, and even one ruled by a distribution of power and a concern for the individual? The moral imperative to maintain society for one's own self-interest, as well as the other's self-interest would maintain a balance to our blindness when it comes to our own governance. Government should be understood to bring a healthy and whole ordered society for the individual and the family to function.
Therefore, the ideal State is run by leaders whose concern is for the country and not for self-interest alone. We must be a people that understands the importance of good government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
