I wonder if the next political struggle will be over whether a person has the right to his body (in all its personhood). What and why would I think this is the next crucial discussion for America?
Traditionally, Americans have believed in private property rights and the division of the private and public. These rights/priviledges are what Americans define as Liberty. The government does not have the right to intrude into personal information or take one's personal property. The debate has been framed most recently around "taxation". But, what about other social issues?
If one is granted religious liberty, whether one chooses to worship a "Divine Being" and how, does it also not follow that a person should be allowed the right to choose what he does or does not do with and to his body? "Body rights" would grant the individual the right to make decisions about healthcare. Government could not demand or intrude upon one's personal decisions concerning one's body.
Assisted suicide is one social issue that concerns the terminally ill, and their right to decide not to suffer or put their families in emotional or financial crisis because of such an illness.
The issue about personal decision making is crucial because government would not and could not make a personal choice about value, as to quality/quantity in life choices.
The outcry against universalized healthcare has been based on such rationale, I think. Americans don't like to be told what to do with their lives. We are "independents". We have believed in liberty of conscience concerning religious concerns, should we not be entitled to make the choices about our own bodies, as personal property?
Bodies should be considered one's personal and private property. It should be no one's business what one chooses to do with healthcare concerns.
Showing posts with label choices. Show all posts
Showing posts with label choices. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Don't Talk to Me About "Love"
I have been romantic most of my life. Dreaming of the day I'd marry and live happily ever after. I absolutely loved planning and being a part of our daughter's wedding. Decorating the reception hall and church was something I will never forget, as I love making things look beautiful! I loved talking to people in junior high and high school about their relationship problems. I used to be all about "relationships". I just knew that things could be worked out. I believed in "love" back then.
Cynicism is a transition phase until one can get over the realities of life. Life is not about hopeful dreams, but problems and difficulties. It is reality based, not escapist theology. Such transition means one doesn't look for narratives to woo one to sleep, but looks for the love in the 'neighbot's face". Friends and family is really all anyone has and these are to be cherished as one gets beyond cynicism of life.
Life hits everyone sometime with hard realities. And those of us who are more sensitized by nature or nurture are prone to react strongly to such realities. Some of us decide to think through their life differently. What they had believed is myth and unrealistic hopefulness of 'Utopian" ideals, not the conflicts, politics and harsh painful realities that are the true reality of life.
I don't think there is any healing for "ideals". These are only to be fought for, they are not realities, but dreams of human hearts. And human hearts understand their dreams in different ways. I only want to now protect others from crushing blows about believing "hopeful dreams". It is improbable for most that dreams come true. And this is what being an adult is about, fighting to live and make one's choices, and be who one desires to be, irregardless of what others think or believe. This is when one not only owns one's life, but starts to enjoy life in a new way, because one begins to love oneself . This is only the begining of happiness, to know oneself and not keep hoping for another reality, life or dream.
After one has grasped that life is not a romantic novel, where things are always completed and neatly tied up, one has to begin thier life in a new understanding of value driven goals, not ideally driven dreams. This is reality based thinking, not mythological dreams for hope in the "by and by".
So, don't talk to me about "love". Love is action, but the action must be driven from personal choices about values that are important. Otherwise, others impose thier "ideals" from the outside, as moral demands and that is not love, nor loving. All of 'us" have a right to "be", so if I am not allowed to "be", "Don't Talk to Me About Love".
Cynicism is a transition phase until one can get over the realities of life. Life is not about hopeful dreams, but problems and difficulties. It is reality based, not escapist theology. Such transition means one doesn't look for narratives to woo one to sleep, but looks for the love in the 'neighbot's face". Friends and family is really all anyone has and these are to be cherished as one gets beyond cynicism of life.
Life hits everyone sometime with hard realities. And those of us who are more sensitized by nature or nurture are prone to react strongly to such realities. Some of us decide to think through their life differently. What they had believed is myth and unrealistic hopefulness of 'Utopian" ideals, not the conflicts, politics and harsh painful realities that are the true reality of life.
I don't think there is any healing for "ideals". These are only to be fought for, they are not realities, but dreams of human hearts. And human hearts understand their dreams in different ways. I only want to now protect others from crushing blows about believing "hopeful dreams". It is improbable for most that dreams come true. And this is what being an adult is about, fighting to live and make one's choices, and be who one desires to be, irregardless of what others think or believe. This is when one not only owns one's life, but starts to enjoy life in a new way, because one begins to love oneself . This is only the begining of happiness, to know oneself and not keep hoping for another reality, life or dream.
After one has grasped that life is not a romantic novel, where things are always completed and neatly tied up, one has to begin thier life in a new understanding of value driven goals, not ideally driven dreams. This is reality based thinking, not mythological dreams for hope in the "by and by".
So, don't talk to me about "love". Love is action, but the action must be driven from personal choices about values that are important. Otherwise, others impose thier "ideals" from the outside, as moral demands and that is not love, nor loving. All of 'us" have a right to "be", so if I am not allowed to "be", "Don't Talk to Me About Love".
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
The Basis of America's Cultural Wars and Civility in the Public Square..
Much has been written about civility and I believe it is necessary to emphasize civility in today's culture of "war". America has always valued it's diversity, but whenever one side thinks their side speaks or should speak for all, then there are gong to be problems. "God" can be dangerous in this cause.
The evanglicalfundametalsts believe that scripture is inspired by God and that its contents are to be followed, as instructions God would "will". The presuppositions to such belief is that God is personal. God has a will that He wants everyone to know and serve. And that "He" controls and governs all of life.
Such a view cannot help but propitiate a passion that is virtually virile in what should be a rational and civil discussion about our society and its future. Whenever one believes that God's Kingdom, purpose, plan or value is absolute and that that is to be served unilaterally, one is condoning intolerance, discrimination, and "war".
Leaders of societies have used civility to "read" the pulse of the public and direct policy around those passions, so that society could remain civil without inciting "war". Such was the view of the Founders of our country. They did not believe unilaterally that God intervened directly, but that there was a order or structure that society should function 'under", which was created by our Constitution.
Today, with the knowledge that psychologists, sociologists, neurologists, and biologists are gaining about humans, it seems that our emotions also influence our thought, choices and values a lot more than previously thought. Law does not take into consideration these "unconscious" needs, values or responses/reactions. How does a civil society, such as Western culture take into account such things? Should we take into account such things? These are questions that our Founders didn't address because their culture was not filled with the diversity that we experience today. So, should we limit diversity, if it challenges the foundations of "law and order"? Human needs go beyond what is seen, but also what is "felt".
Those that are seeking a resolution to the "universal" that binds all together must look more to the human experience of tragedy or joy, because other than that, there are no similarities, it seems. And those similarities are what the "secular", as well as the "sacred" value. That is all that needs to be addressed...
The evanglicalfundametalsts believe that scripture is inspired by God and that its contents are to be followed, as instructions God would "will". The presuppositions to such belief is that God is personal. God has a will that He wants everyone to know and serve. And that "He" controls and governs all of life.
Such a view cannot help but propitiate a passion that is virtually virile in what should be a rational and civil discussion about our society and its future. Whenever one believes that God's Kingdom, purpose, plan or value is absolute and that that is to be served unilaterally, one is condoning intolerance, discrimination, and "war".
Leaders of societies have used civility to "read" the pulse of the public and direct policy around those passions, so that society could remain civil without inciting "war". Such was the view of the Founders of our country. They did not believe unilaterally that God intervened directly, but that there was a order or structure that society should function 'under", which was created by our Constitution.
Today, with the knowledge that psychologists, sociologists, neurologists, and biologists are gaining about humans, it seems that our emotions also influence our thought, choices and values a lot more than previously thought. Law does not take into consideration these "unconscious" needs, values or responses/reactions. How does a civil society, such as Western culture take into account such things? Should we take into account such things? These are questions that our Founders didn't address because their culture was not filled with the diversity that we experience today. So, should we limit diversity, if it challenges the foundations of "law and order"? Human needs go beyond what is seen, but also what is "felt".
Those that are seeking a resolution to the "universal" that binds all together must look more to the human experience of tragedy or joy, because other than that, there are no similarities, it seems. And those similarities are what the "secular", as well as the "sacred" value. That is all that needs to be addressed...
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Social Responsibility Within a Political Frame
Politics drives what policy is heard, considered and how and if it is implemented. Our free society allows any and every voice to be heard, at least in theory. This is important not just for self-interest, but also for the interest of "freedom' in the political realm. Without all being represented, then there will be an oppression of a voice, or a people.
When Obama won the presidentcy, the whole world was elated over the possibility of equality, opprotunity for social change where all voices could be heard. The human heart is like that, it enjoys its freedom. But, freedom that is taken for granted may soon be lost. This is why the military is important. The military watches over our interests abroad and ensures that our ideals of a democratic form of government is won for others. The conflict comes over how that is won.
The individual is the epitome of responsible action, as responsibility cannot be gauged in a corporate way. Political ideologies vie for a hearing in how we think it best to bring about the right or proper society. The society cannot flourish if the individual holds no sense of responsibilty toward our freedoms, as freedom depends on responsible character.
Character is where the individual believes and chooses for the best "outcome". These choices do consider what values are to be upheld, as it is often times not a straight forward decision, but a weighing of what is of most importance. It is wrong for others to make judgments about motivations when judgments are made with personal values in mind. These values may differ from another's and this is where it becomes a question of agreement and cooperation, or of disagreement and a parting of the ways. There is often no "right or wrong", but a matter of personal "tastes".
Many would like to "sell" thier political agenda with phrases that play upon social responsibility. If a person is a person of character, then, the person's commitments will not be shaken with such tactics, as these commitments are already settled. It is only when there has been a lack of commitment or a lack of self-reflection that a crisis becomes the call to commitment of the values of most importance.
Those who have the priviledge to live in free societies should take an active interest in what their government is doing and stands for. This is where the civic meets the moral. And sometimes that means activism.
When Obama won the presidentcy, the whole world was elated over the possibility of equality, opprotunity for social change where all voices could be heard. The human heart is like that, it enjoys its freedom. But, freedom that is taken for granted may soon be lost. This is why the military is important. The military watches over our interests abroad and ensures that our ideals of a democratic form of government is won for others. The conflict comes over how that is won.
The individual is the epitome of responsible action, as responsibility cannot be gauged in a corporate way. Political ideologies vie for a hearing in how we think it best to bring about the right or proper society. The society cannot flourish if the individual holds no sense of responsibilty toward our freedoms, as freedom depends on responsible character.
Character is where the individual believes and chooses for the best "outcome". These choices do consider what values are to be upheld, as it is often times not a straight forward decision, but a weighing of what is of most importance. It is wrong for others to make judgments about motivations when judgments are made with personal values in mind. These values may differ from another's and this is where it becomes a question of agreement and cooperation, or of disagreement and a parting of the ways. There is often no "right or wrong", but a matter of personal "tastes".
Many would like to "sell" thier political agenda with phrases that play upon social responsibility. If a person is a person of character, then, the person's commitments will not be shaken with such tactics, as these commitments are already settled. It is only when there has been a lack of commitment or a lack of self-reflection that a crisis becomes the call to commitment of the values of most importance.
Those who have the priviledge to live in free societies should take an active interest in what their government is doing and stands for. This is where the civic meets the moral. And sometimes that means activism.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Choices?
Some believe that life and the world "works" according to Newton's laws of physics. If you do this, then this is what will happen. It is a mentality that righteousness deserves blessing and unrighteousness deserves judgment......this was what was theologically incorrect in Job. Job had done no wrong, as he was blameless. What was wrong?
What was wrong was man's arrogance, either in judging another (Job), by theologizing about his "sin", or whether it was Job's lack of understanding that "life happens" and we don't understand how or why it "happens'. But, God is above what happens. The book of Job says nothing about how or why things happen, but that God IS and He is the Creator. And we don't understand all about everything...
Some have made a false "world" for sanctifying believers. They presupposed a certain response, with a resulting "judgement" or punishment, if that response is not forthcoming. This is behavior that is modelled on the first stage of morality. It is responding becasue of fear of punishment, which a child does. An adult is to come to a principled life, where the values that are most important determine responses.
But, if there is an outcome-based mentality, where the goal, result or determining purpose is "set-up", without discussing it fully with all parties, then there might be reprecussions on the "goal" or purpose. That is, if all players are needed to fulfill a certain role or function.
Out-come based mentality is a closed system that does not leave room for any differnce of choice or respect for "life"s diverse contingencies. This is what I have against the Christian "worldview" in evangelicalism. It assumes that their view is absolutely correct and determine or plan accordingly. These beliefs are not "set in stone" although they think they are written in God's "word". These beliefs are interpretations and living one's life based on a interpretive text, which has diverse understandings throughout Church history, is short-sighted and small-minded. It perverts justice, while claiming innocence and pointing to God, as the origninator, without taking proper responsibility.
Choice is about personal values, personal commitments, and personal goals. These cannot be placed within a system, unless the system has allowed free exchange and negotiation about all of these aspects of an individual's life. Choice is not about right and wrong, necessarily, but about value.
What are your ultimate values and where do you find meaning in walking these values out in your life?
What was wrong was man's arrogance, either in judging another (Job), by theologizing about his "sin", or whether it was Job's lack of understanding that "life happens" and we don't understand how or why it "happens'. But, God is above what happens. The book of Job says nothing about how or why things happen, but that God IS and He is the Creator. And we don't understand all about everything...
Some have made a false "world" for sanctifying believers. They presupposed a certain response, with a resulting "judgement" or punishment, if that response is not forthcoming. This is behavior that is modelled on the first stage of morality. It is responding becasue of fear of punishment, which a child does. An adult is to come to a principled life, where the values that are most important determine responses.
But, if there is an outcome-based mentality, where the goal, result or determining purpose is "set-up", without discussing it fully with all parties, then there might be reprecussions on the "goal" or purpose. That is, if all players are needed to fulfill a certain role or function.
Out-come based mentality is a closed system that does not leave room for any differnce of choice or respect for "life"s diverse contingencies. This is what I have against the Christian "worldview" in evangelicalism. It assumes that their view is absolutely correct and determine or plan accordingly. These beliefs are not "set in stone" although they think they are written in God's "word". These beliefs are interpretations and living one's life based on a interpretive text, which has diverse understandings throughout Church history, is short-sighted and small-minded. It perverts justice, while claiming innocence and pointing to God, as the origninator, without taking proper responsibility.
Choice is about personal values, personal commitments, and personal goals. These cannot be placed within a system, unless the system has allowed free exchange and negotiation about all of these aspects of an individual's life. Choice is not about right and wrong, necessarily, but about value.
What are your ultimate values and where do you find meaning in walking these values out in your life?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
