Today, is the 10th anniversary of our nation's face to face encounter with terrorism. It was a human Tragedy, but it was also an act of War! How do we see it today, and how will it affect our views in the future? These are questions I'm sure many have on their minds and hearts today!
Terror is an act that is taken against another's Sovereignty. Sovereignty has to do with the right to rule. And the right to rule has to do with government. Our nation values self-government as our ideal, as it protects the values of liberty and conscience. This is the reason why we value human rights, as an ideal.
Humans form societies, and our Founding Fathers created our country to be founded on a basic understanding of "self government". The individual was to rule, not be ruled or dominated by another. Our government was the first to undermine the 'Divine Right of Kings", where government's officials were "granted the right" or "annointed" to rule by "God". Our nation was formed by men that used higher education and human reason to form the rules, or laws that were to govern society. These laws protected individual rights. Reason was unique in man and was the foundation of "conscience".
Today, on the 10th anniversary of 9-11, do we see the need for more government, or less, than our Founders understood to be legitimate? How much is too much, when our nation looks toward a future? Is the future to be determined by government officials, or individual citizens? Are we to be "a people", or a government? Civic responsibility is the responsibility of all of us in a free and open society. "The people" should have the right to their own sovereignty, otherwise, governemnt will not seek legitamacy. The consent of the governed is the only way to protect against intrusive and invasive corruptions of power!
Showing posts with label conscience. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conscience. Show all posts
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Friday, June 17, 2011
The Tyranny of Religious Authority
Ayn Rand
For centuries, the mystics of spirit had existed by running a protection racket—by making life on earth unbearable, then charging you for consolation and relief, by forbidding all the virtues that make existence possible, then riding on the shoulders of your guilt, by declaring production and joy to be sins, then collecting blackmail from the sinners.
Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 153
For centuries, the mystics of spirit had existed by running a protection racket—by making life on earth unbearable, then charging you for consolation and relief, by forbidding all the virtues that make existence possible, then riding on the shoulders of your guilt, by declaring production and joy to be sins, then collecting blackmail from the sinners.
Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 153
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Is Historical Evolution the Way to Evaluate Everything....?
Evolution is the way that some evaluate everything, but is this the right srtategy for "human flourishing? That is really the question, when one assumes that the "natural" describes everything...as in "wholism" or historicism. The difficulty in thinking in "wholistic" terms, is the problem of "thinking", itself, because "wholism" isn't logical, because everything is interdependent. That becomes a problem for liberty of conscience, because strategy is imperative to "measure success". "Thinking" is only for those who are the elites, others are to "trust and obey" and "do their duty".
Wholism is Eastern thinking, as paradox is embraced, it is dialetical thinking, where a synthesis of opposites creates a supposedly "better" outcome. It is Marxist economics in "human form", or "humans" heralding "Marxist" economical theory or equality. It is the "use" of the "poor" for the sake of "eltie"s "outcomes" and plans...
There is a philosophical dilemma between an "elite" and a "equal" society. This isn't resolvable, if one really wants to affirm the individual, as the individual must determine his own course for his life. But, when some "elite" determines (or strategically plans) how goals are to be accomplished, "the people" aren't enjoined. Theirs is the "right" of serving the interests of "the common good", for universal purposes and human evolution, both personal and corporate.. Egalitarianism is an "ideal", but not practical, as "leadership" is needed if any "goal or outcome" is to be accomplished! Therefore, choose your leaders wisely, as you will suffer the consequences!
The problem is "who is to be the leader" and how do those leaders "see" or understand "elite" and "equal"? Do they believe in liberty of conscience, where individuals are allowed the right to choose, or do they believe in a pre-determining "force" or "wholistic agenda" driven by ignoring those they lead? That is of interest "to all people" who believe and affirm "equality and justice"....as group identity will not lead us in the right direction, as it doesn't leave room for dissent, free thought, or difference....the globe cannot give us any universal..And those that believe in "wholism" are just "selling a bill of good" to those they want to manipulate toward what they believe is "human progress", and human development......Terms need to be defined, if there is to be any "consensus" about meaning.....and meaning is everything in living in a free society!!
Wholism is Eastern thinking, as paradox is embraced, it is dialetical thinking, where a synthesis of opposites creates a supposedly "better" outcome. It is Marxist economics in "human form", or "humans" heralding "Marxist" economical theory or equality. It is the "use" of the "poor" for the sake of "eltie"s "outcomes" and plans...
There is a philosophical dilemma between an "elite" and a "equal" society. This isn't resolvable, if one really wants to affirm the individual, as the individual must determine his own course for his life. But, when some "elite" determines (or strategically plans) how goals are to be accomplished, "the people" aren't enjoined. Theirs is the "right" of serving the interests of "the common good", for universal purposes and human evolution, both personal and corporate.. Egalitarianism is an "ideal", but not practical, as "leadership" is needed if any "goal or outcome" is to be accomplished! Therefore, choose your leaders wisely, as you will suffer the consequences!
The problem is "who is to be the leader" and how do those leaders "see" or understand "elite" and "equal"? Do they believe in liberty of conscience, where individuals are allowed the right to choose, or do they believe in a pre-determining "force" or "wholistic agenda" driven by ignoring those they lead? That is of interest "to all people" who believe and affirm "equality and justice"....as group identity will not lead us in the right direction, as it doesn't leave room for dissent, free thought, or difference....the globe cannot give us any universal..And those that believe in "wholism" are just "selling a bill of good" to those they want to manipulate toward what they believe is "human progress", and human development......Terms need to be defined, if there is to be any "consensus" about meaning.....and meaning is everything in living in a free society!!
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
The Tyranny of the "Other"
Atlas Shrugged
I have often wondered at the smugness with which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind—yet what is it that they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands? Their moral code has taught them to believe that it is safe to rely on the virtue of their victims. Well, that is the virtue I have withdrawn.
S3C1
Such thinking are those who seek "virtue" from their "subjects"! These don't just assume a position, but they presume upon it! This is why one must choose their leaders wisely! Otherwise, one will be under the hands of the moral dictators, that demand obedience to the "other's" demands, and at your costs!!!
Virtue cannot be demanded, as it must be given by a personal free choice of value and conscience!
I have often wondered at the smugness with which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind—yet what is it that they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands? Their moral code has taught them to believe that it is safe to rely on the virtue of their victims. Well, that is the virtue I have withdrawn.
S3C1
Such thinking are those who seek "virtue" from their "subjects"! These don't just assume a position, but they presume upon it! This is why one must choose their leaders wisely! Otherwise, one will be under the hands of the moral dictators, that demand obedience to the "other's" demands, and at your costs!!!
Virtue cannot be demanded, as it must be given by a personal free choice of value and conscience!
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Individual Rights and Expectations
Ayn Rand
Do not make the mistake of the ignorant who think that an individualist is a man who says: “I’ll do as I please at everybody else’s expense.” An individualist is a man who recognizes the inalienable individual rights of man—his own and those of others.
“Textbook of Americanism,” The Ayn Rand Column, 84
The other day, I heard a psychologist talk about expectations in relationships. He made the point that expectations make for conflict/"war". Expectations are those "goals", images, desires, hopes, and dreams that are put upon the relationship or the other individual. Though our culture "romanticizes" love and creates what "happily ever afters" must look like, real people must step back long enough to ask themselves and thier mates what are their goals, hopes, dreams, desires, and images of marriage. Otherwise, one will always be frustrated because thier "mate just doesn't get it", and you really won't understand why. But, this way, you can count on having a "real relationship" that is based on real communication with another person, which is not defined by a role or function of one marital partner, but mutuality, compromise, negotiation, and respect.
In civil societies, we come to expect that people will obey the law, where we can live peaceable lives, depending on the mutuality that paints our society. Time has meaning in our society, because Americans believe that deadlines are respect for those that are waiting on you to meet them. When an American makes a date, whether a professional or social one, it is considered disrespectful and dishonoring to be late, without calling with an explaination and apology. This is a common courtesy to not presume upon another individual's time/life. And it doesn't much matter whether the one late is the employer or the employee, as to its message. Americans understand that business does not function apart from the employee, and good businessman knows how to entice and convince an employee to join his enterprise. Collaboration is the "food" of business partnerships, and building teams that meet the expectations of their investors. This is what has prospered America economically; trust, respect, co-operation, and mutuality.
How does free and open communicaton and a respect for individual lives make for a better life? It doesn't if one believes that men and women are unequal, in their personhood. If men and women are looked at as only thier gender identity and form their expectations based on that alone, then, it limits personhood to a particular role or function that is "expected Such structuring of a relationship might be easier to "correct", but it is not fulfilling to the individuals involved. Society might function smoothly, and might benefit by these simple roles/functions, but is society where the ultimate focus should be? Society, as the predominat value in this scenario, is justified to over-ride individual liberties because society cannot function apart from a fully functioning family. And a functioning family is considered in some circles to be a man and a woman, producing children. Society does not have the complexities to discuss when such limitations are the norming "norms". But, how do we address those at either "ends" of marital definition?
Those, who believe that polygamy should be allowed to define marriage, have different expectations of women and the relationship between the husband and wife, than a traditional marriage would. The woman is useful for the man's pleasure and procreation of his familial line. But, the woman has little say, even when they have the "right" to approve of a "newly elected" wife. Should this type of marriage be allowed in our society? Why or why not? Wouldn't it meet the requirements of a fully functioning marriage, a family? Polygomous marriages is a partiarcial view (expectation) of marriage.
On the opposite end, are same sex couples that expect that marriage should be defined by mutual consent, commaradie, and expectations. Is this not similar to the first communicative relationship that was affirmed? Is this kind of marriage to be allowed in our society? Why or why not? Is marriage about one's gender and function within the marital bed/relationship? Is marriage primarily about the ability to procreate?
In America, religious liberty is a value that cannot be undermined, unless we change our Constitutional government. We believe that the individual has a right to conscience in worshipping 'God' however he./she sees fit. No one can deny that priviledge, but it stops at the door of another's conscience, as one individual cannot impose their views, without hindering another's right to civil protections under law.
So, what should we desire for and in America, as to our expectations? Should we desire everyone have the same liberty we desire for ourselves? Should we desire that everyone believe like we do? How possible is it that with America's diversity that we will all see "eye to eye" on most everything? Aren't our diverse views understandings that make for great science in investigating such questions? Should we limit the diversity that is the seed-bed to discovery? I think not, that is my hope and expectation!
Do not make the mistake of the ignorant who think that an individualist is a man who says: “I’ll do as I please at everybody else’s expense.” An individualist is a man who recognizes the inalienable individual rights of man—his own and those of others.
“Textbook of Americanism,” The Ayn Rand Column, 84
The other day, I heard a psychologist talk about expectations in relationships. He made the point that expectations make for conflict/"war". Expectations are those "goals", images, desires, hopes, and dreams that are put upon the relationship or the other individual. Though our culture "romanticizes" love and creates what "happily ever afters" must look like, real people must step back long enough to ask themselves and thier mates what are their goals, hopes, dreams, desires, and images of marriage. Otherwise, one will always be frustrated because thier "mate just doesn't get it", and you really won't understand why. But, this way, you can count on having a "real relationship" that is based on real communication with another person, which is not defined by a role or function of one marital partner, but mutuality, compromise, negotiation, and respect.
In civil societies, we come to expect that people will obey the law, where we can live peaceable lives, depending on the mutuality that paints our society. Time has meaning in our society, because Americans believe that deadlines are respect for those that are waiting on you to meet them. When an American makes a date, whether a professional or social one, it is considered disrespectful and dishonoring to be late, without calling with an explaination and apology. This is a common courtesy to not presume upon another individual's time/life. And it doesn't much matter whether the one late is the employer or the employee, as to its message. Americans understand that business does not function apart from the employee, and good businessman knows how to entice and convince an employee to join his enterprise. Collaboration is the "food" of business partnerships, and building teams that meet the expectations of their investors. This is what has prospered America economically; trust, respect, co-operation, and mutuality.
How does free and open communicaton and a respect for individual lives make for a better life? It doesn't if one believes that men and women are unequal, in their personhood. If men and women are looked at as only thier gender identity and form their expectations based on that alone, then, it limits personhood to a particular role or function that is "expected Such structuring of a relationship might be easier to "correct", but it is not fulfilling to the individuals involved. Society might function smoothly, and might benefit by these simple roles/functions, but is society where the ultimate focus should be? Society, as the predominat value in this scenario, is justified to over-ride individual liberties because society cannot function apart from a fully functioning family. And a functioning family is considered in some circles to be a man and a woman, producing children. Society does not have the complexities to discuss when such limitations are the norming "norms". But, how do we address those at either "ends" of marital definition?
Those, who believe that polygamy should be allowed to define marriage, have different expectations of women and the relationship between the husband and wife, than a traditional marriage would. The woman is useful for the man's pleasure and procreation of his familial line. But, the woman has little say, even when they have the "right" to approve of a "newly elected" wife. Should this type of marriage be allowed in our society? Why or why not? Wouldn't it meet the requirements of a fully functioning marriage, a family? Polygomous marriages is a partiarcial view (expectation) of marriage.
On the opposite end, are same sex couples that expect that marriage should be defined by mutual consent, commaradie, and expectations. Is this not similar to the first communicative relationship that was affirmed? Is this kind of marriage to be allowed in our society? Why or why not? Is marriage about one's gender and function within the marital bed/relationship? Is marriage primarily about the ability to procreate?
In America, religious liberty is a value that cannot be undermined, unless we change our Constitutional government. We believe that the individual has a right to conscience in worshipping 'God' however he./she sees fit. No one can deny that priviledge, but it stops at the door of another's conscience, as one individual cannot impose their views, without hindering another's right to civil protections under law.
So, what should we desire for and in America, as to our expectations? Should we desire everyone have the same liberty we desire for ourselves? Should we desire that everyone believe like we do? How possible is it that with America's diversity that we will all see "eye to eye" on most everything? Aren't our diverse views understandings that make for great science in investigating such questions? Should we limit the diversity that is the seed-bed to discovery? I think not, that is my hope and expectation!
Friday, April 1, 2011
Good People and Religion
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg (1933-)
Social psychologists have known this for a long time! Group behavior via religion tends to "not notice" its own tendency to radicalize! God justifies whatever is deemed "sacred", "holy", "set apart", etc. And when it does.....all kinds of evil from the death cults of Jim Jones, to the greed of a Jim Baker. Nothing is beyond the pale of religious zeal, righteousness, holiness, or "moral out-rage"! And such behavior is called "the fear of God"! But, is is really "self justification" or "self vindication" for those that "need" "God" to make them "feel better" about themselves and the world they live in!
Neuroscience has revealed that the liberal and conservative bias in religion and political views are genetically determined. The consevative is highly sensitzed to their senses, while the liberal is not. The conservative tends to be more emphathetic, than the liberal. So, what one believes about "right and wrong", is really determined by a society's laws. But, what is "felt" as "right or wrong" are genetic (innate) when it comes to cultural differences in a free society.
But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg (1933-)
Social psychologists have known this for a long time! Group behavior via religion tends to "not notice" its own tendency to radicalize! God justifies whatever is deemed "sacred", "holy", "set apart", etc. And when it does.....all kinds of evil from the death cults of Jim Jones, to the greed of a Jim Baker. Nothing is beyond the pale of religious zeal, righteousness, holiness, or "moral out-rage"! And such behavior is called "the fear of God"! But, is is really "self justification" or "self vindication" for those that "need" "God" to make them "feel better" about themselves and the world they live in!
Neuroscience has revealed that the liberal and conservative bias in religion and political views are genetically determined. The consevative is highly sensitzed to their senses, while the liberal is not. The conservative tends to be more emphathetic, than the liberal. So, what one believes about "right and wrong", is really determined by a society's laws. But, what is "felt" as "right or wrong" are genetic (innate) when it comes to cultural differences in a free society.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Power and the Law
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely", so said Lord Acton. Our Founders found this to be so, as well. They framed our government so power could not be absolute, or at least ideally. There are always ways around the law, but those that choose to abide by our laws do so to promote order, and value the liberty our laws are to protect!
Those that are driven by power are driven because of insatiable needs that corrupt them from governing for the "greater good" or from being "public representatives" that serve the public's interests. Power does corrupt. Power has a deadening effect on those under it. There is a sense of invincibility when one has power to wield. Therefore, power must be held by those that are self-reflective enough to know its deadening impact. Many have lost their "life" and reputations because of using their power and influence to gain absolution from the law. Fudging on one's income taxes is to be expected, everyone does it. Then, what are the laws defending? Are laws there to protect some ideal? And what is the rationale for these laws and ideals?
These are questions that concern our courts, in our present day. But, they used to concern the average citizen. People were more prone to self-evaluation back then. Religion serves the purpose of self-reflection for fear of "God's judgment", or "fitting in" with the Church club. And rightly so, for the philosophers of the past said that an "unexamined life is one not worth living".
Religion today does not serve the purpose of "examing one's life". Religion serves the end of justification of one's life or one's end. This leaves little room for self-reflection or self-examination, and religion ends up being the validation of "stoning another" or judging another based on personal conviction.
Personal conviction was the liberty of conscience our Founders granted under law. Religous conscience is valued, but was never to condone the right of judgment, as that was the place of government. Government was to protect everyone's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But, nowadays, the religious fear that our nation has gone too far.
While I agree that our nation has dissolved any means of evaluating values, it isn't because Americans aren't religious/believers, but because religion and the American way of life itself has gotten in the way of "self reflection". We don't have time to do everything on our plates. We delegate to those we hardly know and suffer the consequences of unwise delegation.
We hurry to meet all our promises, which we can hardly meet, with family responsibilities and we wonder why our families suffer or deadlines go by without our meeting them. We bite off more than we can chew. We must know our strengths and weaknesses enough to know what we can handle and make our choices wisely.
Many have gotten into financial straits because they have only looked at the monthly payment, and presumed upon the future, not preparing for it. Wisdom doesn't presume upon others, but meets life with an attitude that one must take their own responsiblity, and not look to others for the hand-out, nor should we compare our standard of living with another's. Everyone doesn't have the same material blessings. So what? The question should be is the pursuit of the material what life consists of? And what are the costs of such a pursuit?. This is not to say that no one should ever have a need that can't be met and our sociel networks could help provide, but more often than not, we are taught that we need dependence on others or that we have a right to have what everyone else has. Such teaching doesn't demand self-responsible behavior. Self-responsible behavior means that society consists for the most part of self-responsible adults, and not dependent children.
All governments are not equal. This is obvious to anyone that loves liberty. Is it moral to demand immoral governments to 'obey' or comply with human rights under the hand of our government's Power? How much should we intervene into other countries and their problems? And how do we choose to get involved? Are our own interests the only protections that are deemed worthy of using power? Obviously, America is limited by resources, and time. Are these what should frame what and when we "give a hand" to those wishing for reform?. But, there are other extenuating circumstances, that make for conflicting interests. Our politicians, and ambassadors are the ones that evaluate those decisions. And our judgments from afar might not know all the facts, nor the conflicts that impinge on such decisions.
I am no expert, by any means, but it seems to me that we all have biases about where we draw our lines. Most of us are not consistant, nor are we reflective enough to know why we choose what we do, nor why we do so. All of us need to evaluate ourselves and determine how we would "lead" if givern similar circumstances and ask ourselves why we make those choices. This would reveal our underlying motivations and determine our priority of values. Then, we might understand that decisions are not "black and white" solutions, but complex problems that need creative minds to solve.
Those that are driven by power are driven because of insatiable needs that corrupt them from governing for the "greater good" or from being "public representatives" that serve the public's interests. Power does corrupt. Power has a deadening effect on those under it. There is a sense of invincibility when one has power to wield. Therefore, power must be held by those that are self-reflective enough to know its deadening impact. Many have lost their "life" and reputations because of using their power and influence to gain absolution from the law. Fudging on one's income taxes is to be expected, everyone does it. Then, what are the laws defending? Are laws there to protect some ideal? And what is the rationale for these laws and ideals?
These are questions that concern our courts, in our present day. But, they used to concern the average citizen. People were more prone to self-evaluation back then. Religion serves the purpose of self-reflection for fear of "God's judgment", or "fitting in" with the Church club. And rightly so, for the philosophers of the past said that an "unexamined life is one not worth living".
Religion today does not serve the purpose of "examing one's life". Religion serves the end of justification of one's life or one's end. This leaves little room for self-reflection or self-examination, and religion ends up being the validation of "stoning another" or judging another based on personal conviction.
Personal conviction was the liberty of conscience our Founders granted under law. Religous conscience is valued, but was never to condone the right of judgment, as that was the place of government. Government was to protect everyone's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But, nowadays, the religious fear that our nation has gone too far.
While I agree that our nation has dissolved any means of evaluating values, it isn't because Americans aren't religious/believers, but because religion and the American way of life itself has gotten in the way of "self reflection". We don't have time to do everything on our plates. We delegate to those we hardly know and suffer the consequences of unwise delegation.
We hurry to meet all our promises, which we can hardly meet, with family responsibilities and we wonder why our families suffer or deadlines go by without our meeting them. We bite off more than we can chew. We must know our strengths and weaknesses enough to know what we can handle and make our choices wisely.
Many have gotten into financial straits because they have only looked at the monthly payment, and presumed upon the future, not preparing for it. Wisdom doesn't presume upon others, but meets life with an attitude that one must take their own responsiblity, and not look to others for the hand-out, nor should we compare our standard of living with another's. Everyone doesn't have the same material blessings. So what? The question should be is the pursuit of the material what life consists of? And what are the costs of such a pursuit?. This is not to say that no one should ever have a need that can't be met and our sociel networks could help provide, but more often than not, we are taught that we need dependence on others or that we have a right to have what everyone else has. Such teaching doesn't demand self-responsible behavior. Self-responsible behavior means that society consists for the most part of self-responsible adults, and not dependent children.
All governments are not equal. This is obvious to anyone that loves liberty. Is it moral to demand immoral governments to 'obey' or comply with human rights under the hand of our government's Power? How much should we intervene into other countries and their problems? And how do we choose to get involved? Are our own interests the only protections that are deemed worthy of using power? Obviously, America is limited by resources, and time. Are these what should frame what and when we "give a hand" to those wishing for reform?. But, there are other extenuating circumstances, that make for conflicting interests. Our politicians, and ambassadors are the ones that evaluate those decisions. And our judgments from afar might not know all the facts, nor the conflicts that impinge on such decisions.
I am no expert, by any means, but it seems to me that we all have biases about where we draw our lines. Most of us are not consistant, nor are we reflective enough to know why we choose what we do, nor why we do so. All of us need to evaluate ourselves and determine how we would "lead" if givern similar circumstances and ask ourselves why we make those choices. This would reveal our underlying motivations and determine our priority of values. Then, we might understand that decisions are not "black and white" solutions, but complex problems that need creative minds to solve.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Discrimination Is the Means of Making Decisions
One must discriminate to make value judgments. Otherwise, one is doomed to be defined by others and their value judgments. Values are what form our decision making and what makes for discriminations.
Universalism is an Utopian ideal, but is not practical in the real world of politics. One must make choices about where to draw lines, and where and what makes for the "best life", for oneself and others.
Our Constitution allows liberty of judgemnts, where religions seeks to subvert such liberty. Our society, while free and liberal, is also in need of solutions to societal ills. Such ills as budget deficits, to local delinquency are of concern to citizens. The answers are complex and won't be easy to come by, as they infliterate into our very cultural meleiu. What makes America American.
Liberty is such a value. More than once, I've heard that liberty is associated with license. "License" has to be defined. The normal definition of "license" is offical permission to carry out a particular job by the proper authorities. Licenses are legal contracts. But, the context might make a significant differnce. The religious would define license as "against God's law". Such definition is a narrowly focused, but widely defined, as religions would define "God" and "law" differently. This difference is what makes for religous wars. And such wars are justified in the name of "God".
Our Constitution limits only those who'd limit others in their liberty to 'find their own way". Choice is a value in America, because we believe in individual liberty of conscience. But, American families are broken and Americans have lost thie "sense" about value, when they don't seem to care about anything other than watching the next episode of "The Bacholor". Children are raised with little sense of self, because their parents are too busy to make room for baby. I don't value this attitude, because young people need guidance, so that they can make wise choices about thier lives. Parents and others in the community are needed to encourage such emotional and character development.
Discrimination means that making choices might mean separating onself from things that are not valued, as much. Prioritizing such values is a necessary "education" about oneself and goal setting.
In our culture, "discrimination' has gotten a "bad" or negative definition, because it has so often been associated with racial, or sexual inquality. Equality is an American ideal, so the politically correct definition of discrimination never gets investigated. It is swallowed without thinking about what it might mean.
I am glad that America allows for inviduals to discriminate about thier own values and purposes, otherwise, I would be discriminated against!!
Universalism is an Utopian ideal, but is not practical in the real world of politics. One must make choices about where to draw lines, and where and what makes for the "best life", for oneself and others.
Our Constitution allows liberty of judgemnts, where religions seeks to subvert such liberty. Our society, while free and liberal, is also in need of solutions to societal ills. Such ills as budget deficits, to local delinquency are of concern to citizens. The answers are complex and won't be easy to come by, as they infliterate into our very cultural meleiu. What makes America American.
Liberty is such a value. More than once, I've heard that liberty is associated with license. "License" has to be defined. The normal definition of "license" is offical permission to carry out a particular job by the proper authorities. Licenses are legal contracts. But, the context might make a significant differnce. The religious would define license as "against God's law". Such definition is a narrowly focused, but widely defined, as religions would define "God" and "law" differently. This difference is what makes for religous wars. And such wars are justified in the name of "God".
Our Constitution limits only those who'd limit others in their liberty to 'find their own way". Choice is a value in America, because we believe in individual liberty of conscience. But, American families are broken and Americans have lost thie "sense" about value, when they don't seem to care about anything other than watching the next episode of "The Bacholor". Children are raised with little sense of self, because their parents are too busy to make room for baby. I don't value this attitude, because young people need guidance, so that they can make wise choices about thier lives. Parents and others in the community are needed to encourage such emotional and character development.
Discrimination means that making choices might mean separating onself from things that are not valued, as much. Prioritizing such values is a necessary "education" about oneself and goal setting.
In our culture, "discrimination' has gotten a "bad" or negative definition, because it has so often been associated with racial, or sexual inquality. Equality is an American ideal, so the politically correct definition of discrimination never gets investigated. It is swallowed without thinking about what it might mean.
I am glad that America allows for inviduals to discriminate about thier own values and purposes, otherwise, I would be discriminated against!!
Monday, February 14, 2011
Social Problems Have Different Solutions.
Social problems have many different solutions, depending on how one understand and evaluates them. Take for instance homosexuality.
Does one see the homosexual as a human being, first and foremost? Or does one see the value of society's order and structure of primary importance? So, then, it is defined as "sin" or "crime"?
How is homosexuality understood?
As a behavior where the homosexual doesn't deserve equal respect or dignity as to human value?
Why? Because of "sin" or society?
As a abherrant behavior? is this abherrancy something that is something beyond the control of the individual homosexual, like genetic or upbringing?
Or is there a predisposition to this behavior and the individual choice of the homosexual is what makes for morality, as to society's "good"? or is homoseuxality to be the next social change because society's values are really dependent on boundaries around relationships? It is loyalty and stability in relationships that structure and maintain society's order?
The questions about what is "Human Nature" and where the needs of the human and societal needs and values intersect are important and significant to address, if one wants to allow for liberty of conscience and the value of human choice.
Does one see the homosexual as a human being, first and foremost? Or does one see the value of society's order and structure of primary importance? So, then, it is defined as "sin" or "crime"?
How is homosexuality understood?
As a behavior where the homosexual doesn't deserve equal respect or dignity as to human value?
Why? Because of "sin" or society?
As a abherrant behavior? is this abherrancy something that is something beyond the control of the individual homosexual, like genetic or upbringing?
Or is there a predisposition to this behavior and the individual choice of the homosexual is what makes for morality, as to society's "good"? or is homoseuxality to be the next social change because society's values are really dependent on boundaries around relationships? It is loyalty and stability in relationships that structure and maintain society's order?
The questions about what is "Human Nature" and where the needs of the human and societal needs and values intersect are important and significant to address, if one wants to allow for liberty of conscience and the value of human choice.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
My Friend's Post on Abortion
I am certainly thinking through the implications of one's political commitments. These are important because they reveal one's values and are important in determining and making decisions about one's life, and the life of the society one wants for oneself and one's family.
On "Using My Liberty", my friend, Mary Diane Goin, challenges those that would lightly abort an "inconvenience". Her argument has been supported by philosophical and biological information that would be applauded by anyone with any sense. She argues that she is a libertarian Christian, meaning that she keeps poitical views about liberty separate from her religious views, when they would impinge upon another human's choice of value concerning their life.
I used to be "Pro-Life", but just recently I am seeking to understand on what basis are rights based, if there is only "nature without God"? Of course, Diane's argument is based on Catholic natural rights/natural law theory. But, if there is no God, how does one argue the right of the unborn? or of anyone? Diane points this out, in her distinction between natural and legal rights. Practically speaking, if there are no legal rights, then there is no real political liberty. And without political liberty, then life isn't really "life", is it, for the born or the unborn!
First, there is the question of how the "Pro Life" movement as a whole has treated those that have had abortions or those going to get abortions at the abortion clinic. It is as if, these girls/women are disregarded and disrespected because in the eyes of the 'Pro Life" movement they don't deserve to exist, because they have broken God's Law against murder. And to top that off, they are murdering an innocent child, a gift of Gd. Some have gone so far to murder the woman or the doctor who was responsible. Others think that "shunning" or shaming will bring about repentance! It reminds me of Jesus' admonition that "he that is without sin, cast the first stone" (altho that story was not in the original sources). People judge others based on what they have been taught is right, and then, like herd animals throw stones at those that "for the grace of God" they'd be"....they do not love mercy, exept for the unborn. .
But, let's back up. First one has to believe that God exists, that he grants natural rights, and that sexual intercourse that results in conception is his Divine intervention, or at least, his means of reproducing the human race. Humans are viewed by such as these as more than animals. Humans are a unique creations of God. He Directly or indirectly CAUSES the conception. This view believes that God intervenes in the affairs of men. One believes that God interevene directly, while the other believes that he intervenes indirectly. So, abortion is first and foremost a "sin" against God and His interevening Providence!
Such believers believe they have a justified right to impose their view on others because they think that God has commanded that "Thou Shalt Not Kill", the abortionists are in danger of God's judgment, either supernaturally or naturally. The Supernaturalist would believe that one will be judged at the "end of time", while the naturalist would believe that God's judgment is in self-condemnation. (There could be a mixture of each as the naturalist could also believe that one would also have to give an account "at the day of reckoning").There is an urgency about getting these women to repent, so they won't face judgment. They see their "moral concern" as "God's concern". They are "God" ambassador's or representatives for the unborn and their rights".
Besides the belief that natural causes are the direct or indirect intervention of God, there is the belief that all natural results of intercourse should be accepted. This is taking responsibility for one's choice and action. Some of these believe that all contraception is inhibiting the natural course of God's causal intervention,....that is, using the means of sexual intercourse as an end to produce a child. Sexual interourse is viewed first and foremost as precreation, because of the Genesis mandate to "be fruitful and multiply"
Since these are adamantly opposed to contraception because it interferes with nature, and nature is viewed as God's footstool, these believe that chasity is to be promoted for teens. This is the only option, because God doesn't sanction sex outside of marriage. While I agree, I wonder what to do about those teens that aren't going to have the opportunity for a "nice Christian upbringing, or Church influence, or even consider the option of chasity, as this has not been their example or reality. Or possibly there are some that seek so much to be accepted that the compromise their principles to "fit in" or to "be loved". Teenagers are known to be impulsive and idealistic (I won't get pregnant!)
What about those that spread sexually transmitted diseases, or AIDS because condoms are not advised? Is responsibility about society's overall health and how is that gauged? Because divorce rates are impacting society at such great levels, should we legislate against divorce? (Christians are divorced just as often as non-Christians). Christians are still having abortions in great numbers ( my friend had the stats on one of her posts) I think the greatest inhibitor against pre-marital sex is self-respect, not "God's prohibition" and teaching teens about their dignity as persons.
If taking responsibility for one's choices is of value to the "Pro Life" movement, what if one has more children than one can provide for, then what? One believes that "God will provide"! Shouldn't there be a rational budget consideration when planning for children, or is planning children not allowed because that would be usurping "God's place"? Certainly, most Christians believe that contraception is not forbidden within the marital relationship. But, there might be disagreement about what kind of contraception would be warranted. Doesn't it become a matter of conscience (even before God)?
The arguments from biology are strong, but one only argues from biology if one believe that the universe and all that is is "under God" and is 'his design" and the place where he manifest "his will".
Sex is a natural human desire. I think that there are worse and better ways for humans to view sex within society and to benefit the whole of society. Marriage is to be the norm for relational safety and sexual expression for the sake of society's physical health and the sake of society's children. But, these values have nothing to do with "God, neccsarily. Most people would have these values, for it is a matter of maintaining stability for society. And stability is what makes for a healthy environment.
In conclusion, if one is a Christian, and believes in the orthodox view of God, as interventional then of course, there would be an affirmation of the "Pro Life" Movement.
On "Using My Liberty", my friend, Mary Diane Goin, challenges those that would lightly abort an "inconvenience". Her argument has been supported by philosophical and biological information that would be applauded by anyone with any sense. She argues that she is a libertarian Christian, meaning that she keeps poitical views about liberty separate from her religious views, when they would impinge upon another human's choice of value concerning their life.
I used to be "Pro-Life", but just recently I am seeking to understand on what basis are rights based, if there is only "nature without God"? Of course, Diane's argument is based on Catholic natural rights/natural law theory. But, if there is no God, how does one argue the right of the unborn? or of anyone? Diane points this out, in her distinction between natural and legal rights. Practically speaking, if there are no legal rights, then there is no real political liberty. And without political liberty, then life isn't really "life", is it, for the born or the unborn!
First, there is the question of how the "Pro Life" movement as a whole has treated those that have had abortions or those going to get abortions at the abortion clinic. It is as if, these girls/women are disregarded and disrespected because in the eyes of the 'Pro Life" movement they don't deserve to exist, because they have broken God's Law against murder. And to top that off, they are murdering an innocent child, a gift of Gd. Some have gone so far to murder the woman or the doctor who was responsible. Others think that "shunning" or shaming will bring about repentance! It reminds me of Jesus' admonition that "he that is without sin, cast the first stone" (altho that story was not in the original sources). People judge others based on what they have been taught is right, and then, like herd animals throw stones at those that "for the grace of God" they'd be"....they do not love mercy, exept for the unborn. .
But, let's back up. First one has to believe that God exists, that he grants natural rights, and that sexual intercourse that results in conception is his Divine intervention, or at least, his means of reproducing the human race. Humans are viewed by such as these as more than animals. Humans are a unique creations of God. He Directly or indirectly CAUSES the conception. This view believes that God intervenes in the affairs of men. One believes that God interevene directly, while the other believes that he intervenes indirectly. So, abortion is first and foremost a "sin" against God and His interevening Providence!
Such believers believe they have a justified right to impose their view on others because they think that God has commanded that "Thou Shalt Not Kill", the abortionists are in danger of God's judgment, either supernaturally or naturally. The Supernaturalist would believe that one will be judged at the "end of time", while the naturalist would believe that God's judgment is in self-condemnation. (There could be a mixture of each as the naturalist could also believe that one would also have to give an account "at the day of reckoning").There is an urgency about getting these women to repent, so they won't face judgment. They see their "moral concern" as "God's concern". They are "God" ambassador's or representatives for the unborn and their rights".
Besides the belief that natural causes are the direct or indirect intervention of God, there is the belief that all natural results of intercourse should be accepted. This is taking responsibility for one's choice and action. Some of these believe that all contraception is inhibiting the natural course of God's causal intervention,....that is, using the means of sexual intercourse as an end to produce a child. Sexual interourse is viewed first and foremost as precreation, because of the Genesis mandate to "be fruitful and multiply"
Since these are adamantly opposed to contraception because it interferes with nature, and nature is viewed as God's footstool, these believe that chasity is to be promoted for teens. This is the only option, because God doesn't sanction sex outside of marriage. While I agree, I wonder what to do about those teens that aren't going to have the opportunity for a "nice Christian upbringing, or Church influence, or even consider the option of chasity, as this has not been their example or reality. Or possibly there are some that seek so much to be accepted that the compromise their principles to "fit in" or to "be loved". Teenagers are known to be impulsive and idealistic (I won't get pregnant!)
What about those that spread sexually transmitted diseases, or AIDS because condoms are not advised? Is responsibility about society's overall health and how is that gauged? Because divorce rates are impacting society at such great levels, should we legislate against divorce? (Christians are divorced just as often as non-Christians). Christians are still having abortions in great numbers ( my friend had the stats on one of her posts) I think the greatest inhibitor against pre-marital sex is self-respect, not "God's prohibition" and teaching teens about their dignity as persons.
If taking responsibility for one's choices is of value to the "Pro Life" movement, what if one has more children than one can provide for, then what? One believes that "God will provide"! Shouldn't there be a rational budget consideration when planning for children, or is planning children not allowed because that would be usurping "God's place"? Certainly, most Christians believe that contraception is not forbidden within the marital relationship. But, there might be disagreement about what kind of contraception would be warranted. Doesn't it become a matter of conscience (even before God)?
The arguments from biology are strong, but one only argues from biology if one believe that the universe and all that is is "under God" and is 'his design" and the place where he manifest "his will".
Sex is a natural human desire. I think that there are worse and better ways for humans to view sex within society and to benefit the whole of society. Marriage is to be the norm for relational safety and sexual expression for the sake of society's physical health and the sake of society's children. But, these values have nothing to do with "God, neccsarily. Most people would have these values, for it is a matter of maintaining stability for society. And stability is what makes for a healthy environment.
In conclusion, if one is a Christian, and believes in the orthodox view of God, as interventional then of course, there would be an affirmation of the "Pro Life" Movement.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Moral Busybodies, Again!
C.S. Lewis on Moral Busybodies
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Self, as Conscious Manager
Our Founders "founded" a government based on "self-governance". Self-governance was one's ability to be one's "own manager". And this is what has made for the greatness of the American experiment/experience!
The individual is allowed the liberty to pursue his own goals and opportunities to enlarge himself with education, freedom of information, free access to worship, as one chooses, or does not choose. This is a form or governing that is limited, because it does not intrude or interfere with the human right to liberty of conscience. Laws were to protect the individual which formed society, as well as society being protected by the laws that framed its realities.
Today, both liberals and conservatives like to use the law to demand obedience to their "form of understanding" society. The conservative likes to frame society based on thier understanding of "Creation", "God" and Scripture, while the liberal also wants to frame society on that basis, but has a different way of understanding those terms. What both seem to not balance is the individual's right in the midst of society. The majority (society) does not have a right against the minority (the individual) otherwise, there would be not "protections under law". This is where the libertarian view affirms individuality, as it concerns liberty.
The libertarian would affirm the right of the individual in regards to religion, their life, and the market. Social interests, "the common good", society's protections, etc. do not limit government or the majority in its demands upon the individual and conscience. Liberty is an important value for America in this regard. Otherwise, we do use the 'force of the law" to impose our understanding of "what is best" without understanding that our fellow citizen also has a right to his understanding. We do not want coercion, either in the name of the "God of our understanding" or the "god of the nature". Both are hard task-masters.
The individual is allowed the liberty to pursue his own goals and opportunities to enlarge himself with education, freedom of information, free access to worship, as one chooses, or does not choose. This is a form or governing that is limited, because it does not intrude or interfere with the human right to liberty of conscience. Laws were to protect the individual which formed society, as well as society being protected by the laws that framed its realities.
Today, both liberals and conservatives like to use the law to demand obedience to their "form of understanding" society. The conservative likes to frame society based on thier understanding of "Creation", "God" and Scripture, while the liberal also wants to frame society on that basis, but has a different way of understanding those terms. What both seem to not balance is the individual's right in the midst of society. The majority (society) does not have a right against the minority (the individual) otherwise, there would be not "protections under law". This is where the libertarian view affirms individuality, as it concerns liberty.
The libertarian would affirm the right of the individual in regards to religion, their life, and the market. Social interests, "the common good", society's protections, etc. do not limit government or the majority in its demands upon the individual and conscience. Liberty is an important value for America in this regard. Otherwise, we do use the 'force of the law" to impose our understanding of "what is best" without understanding that our fellow citizen also has a right to his understanding. We do not want coercion, either in the name of the "God of our understanding" or the "god of the nature". Both are hard task-masters.
Monday, October 25, 2010
C.S. Lewis on Moral Busybodies
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - Copy to Clipboard
-- C.S. Lewis
-- C.S. Lewis
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Political Correctness and Free Speech
"Political correctness" is not just a recent phenomenon. And not just one political or social structure has been guilty of it. The problem is not with social structures themselves, but when the social structures obtain the political power to abuse the individual with "political correctness". The individual, not the social structure OR the group, however that is defined, that is most important.
In times past, religion determined what was "politically correct". Religion has the history of investigating witches, scientists, and heretics. The political power of the Church, as a political machine determined what was "politically correct". Political power in such an institution does not grant individual liberty of conscience.
In more recent times, political ideology and nationalism determined what was 'politically correct". "Political correctness' was determined by Nazi Germany. And the discriminated were the Jews. Political power seeks to affirm one group, however that is defined, at the expense of the other.
Today, religion and science vies for the power for "political correctness". Religion, on the one hand, demands obedience and respect, irregardless of questions, opinions and various individual differences. These believe that there is "one way of understanding human experience" or "God", when it comes to religion.
On the opposite end of political correctness, is science. Science determines what is "real" and what is seeking to understand what is the political correct view of "being human". "Human Nature" is what will be the "politically correct" way of being in the world. There is no individuality there.
Both religion and science seeks to be the determination of global affairs instructuring the world "in their own image". This is why we are in our culture wars today.
Islam, as the "correct" discriminated party today, is protected under our 'politically correct" political "order". No one can say anything against a Muslim because the world is doing its penance toward Islam's discrimination. This "politically correct" view is not dissimilar to African Americans and their discrimination. How is a "political correct" view not discriminating against those that differ in their views?
The world is doing it penance toward these racial /religious discriminatons by a re-distribution of wealth and power. And it is a dangerous enterprise to say the least. Whenever one justifies victimization to an extreme, then we do disservice to human development and enable the victim to remain unchanged. There is a place for affirming "what happened", but there is no justification for "social justice" when justice seeks to make others pay for another 'time' or place in history!
In times past, religion determined what was "politically correct". Religion has the history of investigating witches, scientists, and heretics. The political power of the Church, as a political machine determined what was "politically correct". Political power in such an institution does not grant individual liberty of conscience.
In more recent times, political ideology and nationalism determined what was 'politically correct". "Political correctness' was determined by Nazi Germany. And the discriminated were the Jews. Political power seeks to affirm one group, however that is defined, at the expense of the other.
Today, religion and science vies for the power for "political correctness". Religion, on the one hand, demands obedience and respect, irregardless of questions, opinions and various individual differences. These believe that there is "one way of understanding human experience" or "God", when it comes to religion.
On the opposite end of political correctness, is science. Science determines what is "real" and what is seeking to understand what is the political correct view of "being human". "Human Nature" is what will be the "politically correct" way of being in the world. There is no individuality there.
Both religion and science seeks to be the determination of global affairs instructuring the world "in their own image". This is why we are in our culture wars today.
Islam, as the "correct" discriminated party today, is protected under our 'politically correct" political "order". No one can say anything against a Muslim because the world is doing its penance toward Islam's discrimination. This "politically correct" view is not dissimilar to African Americans and their discrimination. How is a "political correct" view not discriminating against those that differ in their views?
The world is doing it penance toward these racial /religious discriminatons by a re-distribution of wealth and power. And it is a dangerous enterprise to say the least. Whenever one justifies victimization to an extreme, then we do disservice to human development and enable the victim to remain unchanged. There is a place for affirming "what happened", but there is no justification for "social justice" when justice seeks to make others pay for another 'time' or place in history!
Friday, April 9, 2010
Morality and America
I have concern over our nation's recent division over "cultural issues" of morality. Our country seems to be conflicted over our ideological identity. And identity defines how we understand ourselves, so identity is an important aspect of culture.
Morality is considered by some as behavior, judgments and sentiments. Some believe that morality is intuitive, through cultural conditioning. Others believe in a more rational view of morality. It seems that because our country is so diverse, America has come to a crisis of identity. This can be useful or damaging to our ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Awhile ago, I listened to a former KGB agent talk about the process that the USSR taught them in over-taking another country. There were four stages. The third was "crisis" and this is where America finds itself. What is to happen? Will we be overcome by an "authoritarian regime' , whether religious or secular, so that order can be restored? I hope not, otherwise, we will have no more liberty, because others will decide what was of private and personal conviction and commitment.
I hope for the Founding Fathers, and life in the future for all Americans, that the lines will not be drawn and driven on ideological religious or material grounds. We will certainly have disagreements and that is healthy, as long as we can listen to the other side, without obssession. I hope we will attempt to be honest that our nation is not a uniform, and ideologically driven nation.
Our nation has been pragmatic in its approach to bringing unity from diversity. And the Founders used religious language to formulate some of our country's documents. But, others have been based on such things as natural rights, and natural law, which was the scientific view of that day. Both religious liberty AND moral order, which was understood to be the "order of the universe" were what brought about our liberty and underwrote our understanding of justice.
We need to be honest that our nation was not founded as an evangelical nation, but a secular State, which allowed for diverse views about and toward religious traditions. It is a liberal democracy or a Constitutional Republic. Both are needed to affirm and balance the other, so that our nation can remain free, and open. We do not want to limit others liberty because of our own conviction or understanding of 'life".
Morality is considered by some as behavior, judgments and sentiments. Some believe that morality is intuitive, through cultural conditioning. Others believe in a more rational view of morality. It seems that because our country is so diverse, America has come to a crisis of identity. This can be useful or damaging to our ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Awhile ago, I listened to a former KGB agent talk about the process that the USSR taught them in over-taking another country. There were four stages. The third was "crisis" and this is where America finds itself. What is to happen? Will we be overcome by an "authoritarian regime' , whether religious or secular, so that order can be restored? I hope not, otherwise, we will have no more liberty, because others will decide what was of private and personal conviction and commitment.
I hope for the Founding Fathers, and life in the future for all Americans, that the lines will not be drawn and driven on ideological religious or material grounds. We will certainly have disagreements and that is healthy, as long as we can listen to the other side, without obssession. I hope we will attempt to be honest that our nation is not a uniform, and ideologically driven nation.
Our nation has been pragmatic in its approach to bringing unity from diversity. And the Founders used religious language to formulate some of our country's documents. But, others have been based on such things as natural rights, and natural law, which was the scientific view of that day. Both religious liberty AND moral order, which was understood to be the "order of the universe" were what brought about our liberty and underwrote our understanding of justice.
We need to be honest that our nation was not founded as an evangelical nation, but a secular State, which allowed for diverse views about and toward religious traditions. It is a liberal democracy or a Constitutional Republic. Both are needed to affirm and balance the other, so that our nation can remain free, and open. We do not want to limit others liberty because of our own conviction or understanding of 'life".
Sunday, April 4, 2010
The Personal Can Never Be the Universal....
The personal can never be the universal, because of man's unique "giftedness". Some would disagree and think that, as Maslow thought, that man's "needs" are based on a scale of hierarchy. But, anyone that has seen a mother give up her "last morsel of bread", or a stranger act to defend the defenseless, has not known or experienced man's ability to rise above his hierarchal needs.
On the other hand, one cannot presume that a particular individual should act in any particular way, as this would undermine what is needed for altruistic action, which is liberty of choice and value. Man is not made for another man's purposes, but is his own end. The libertarian would defend the right of men to their own personal convictions. Actions come from values, convictions, and most choices are made on a scale of higher or greater values, etc. And these are all individually understood and defined within our society. There is no "one Purpose" .
Today, the pastor admonished his parishnors to embrace the life of faith, in the resurrection and the purposes of God. Faith is a personal choice and decision, once one comes to understand that the "real world" does not function on any other course of action than "real world action", real world solutions, and real world politics. The real world is the political, social, physical, historical, experiential, and cultural one. And free socities do not tend to dictate what or which is of ultimate value, nor define these for the individual, except within the boundaries of law. And the law protects the citizen in their liberty of conscience.
Though the personal can never be the universal, neither can there be a universal understanding of life, as it concerns the individual.
Albert Einstein:
All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom.
On the other hand, one cannot presume that a particular individual should act in any particular way, as this would undermine what is needed for altruistic action, which is liberty of choice and value. Man is not made for another man's purposes, but is his own end. The libertarian would defend the right of men to their own personal convictions. Actions come from values, convictions, and most choices are made on a scale of higher or greater values, etc. And these are all individually understood and defined within our society. There is no "one Purpose" .
Today, the pastor admonished his parishnors to embrace the life of faith, in the resurrection and the purposes of God. Faith is a personal choice and decision, once one comes to understand that the "real world" does not function on any other course of action than "real world action", real world solutions, and real world politics. The real world is the political, social, physical, historical, experiential, and cultural one. And free socities do not tend to dictate what or which is of ultimate value, nor define these for the individual, except within the boundaries of law. And the law protects the citizen in their liberty of conscience.
Though the personal can never be the universal, neither can there be a universal understanding of life, as it concerns the individual.
Albert Einstein:
All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Why Democracy is the Most Important Value
This morning I have been thinking about liberty, and how thankful I am that I live in a free society. Here are some quotes, from philosophers, politicians, Christians, and journalists that value democracy and uphold liberty of conscience.
Anna Garlin Spencer:
The earth is ready, the time is ripe, for the authoritative expression of the feminine as well as the masculine interpretation of that common social consensus which is slowly writing justice in the State and fraternity in the social order.
Aristotle:
If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.
Barry Goldwater:
Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed.
-->C. S. Lewis:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Dorothy Thompson:
Of all forms of government and society, those of free men and women are in many respects the most brittle. They give the fullest freedom for activities of private persons and groups who often identify their own interests, essentially selfish, with the general welfare.
Individuals must protect the liberty of the other, if they want to protect it for themselves. And I don't believe that some think that this is reasonable, because they think that how they find "life" is how everyone finds it. Their understanding should be everyone's, because it is ultimately true. Arrogance is borne on the heels of ignorance, or power and both must be tempered by "education".
This morning there was a cartoon of an elephant and donkey that were looking up to see "tea bags" raining from the sky! I herald the effort of the tea parties, as I think this is the only way to win the war against tyranny. We must educate ourselves about our historical roots and determine that we will resist tyranny. Let's hope that the means that our Founders "put in place" are still enforceable and that there are enough people who care and have the power to use those means!
Anna Garlin Spencer:
The earth is ready, the time is ripe, for the authoritative expression of the feminine as well as the masculine interpretation of that common social consensus which is slowly writing justice in the State and fraternity in the social order.
Aristotle:
If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.
Barry Goldwater:
Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed.
-->C. S. Lewis:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Dorothy Thompson:
Of all forms of government and society, those of free men and women are in many respects the most brittle. They give the fullest freedom for activities of private persons and groups who often identify their own interests, essentially selfish, with the general welfare.
Individuals must protect the liberty of the other, if they want to protect it for themselves. And I don't believe that some think that this is reasonable, because they think that how they find "life" is how everyone finds it. Their understanding should be everyone's, because it is ultimately true. Arrogance is borne on the heels of ignorance, or power and both must be tempered by "education".
This morning there was a cartoon of an elephant and donkey that were looking up to see "tea bags" raining from the sky! I herald the effort of the tea parties, as I think this is the only way to win the war against tyranny. We must educate ourselves about our historical roots and determine that we will resist tyranny. Let's hope that the means that our Founders "put in place" are still enforceable and that there are enough people who care and have the power to use those means!
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Quote for the Day....
“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.“
– Thomas Jefferson
– Thomas Jefferson
I Like "Positive Liberty"
I like the term positive liberty. I got the term "positive liberty" from another blog site I follow, American Creation. One of American Creation's contributors has a blog called "Positive Liberty", which I have visited on occasion. His name is Jonathan Rowe, and he is a lawyer.
As I have thought about the concept, "positive liberty", I have come to "see" an important, if not a prime value of mine, as well, as our country. "Positive liberty" means that the law and the country seeks to protect liberty. I am not saying that this is the stance of the blog by that name, nor of its contributors, Jonathan Rowe being only one. But, liberty is the highest value in American society. Some think this is a good thing, others do not. Where do we draw our lines and on what basis? (I am thinking on this myself.)
Our American society is guided by principles that allow freedom to individuals as "equal under law". But, social conservatives have always understood society as a narrowed liberty to the social norms as defined by one's social group, mostly by parochial standards. But, our society has changed over these two hundred plus years, where many of the social ills of the past were taboo, today, we do not see many, if any social taboos. And with our enlightened understanding of science, we are even more open to re-define what makes for a flourishing society. But, if science is what defines our society today, are there to be any limits upon scientific investigation? And on what rationale is science to be limited?
Crime will always be considered taboo, but even crime has become defined or specified by science. A criminal is dealt with according to an enlightened view of the person, and their motivations and not just the crime or social norm, itself. We are, after all, a "humane society".
But, what happens when society's leaders have no moral inhibition to such things that were forbidden in the past and even, go to the extent of stretching the law's intent to the benefit of the "legalist"? This is why we have such ethical problems today in our leaders, whether governmental, or corporate. And recently, these same indiscretions lay at the doorstep of the Church, as well. This is where we are today. And our country is not "greater for it, either".
Although I understand the pro-life stance, I cannot take that stance legally, because of the "humane" aspects or the personability of our country's values. Prohibition used to be America's stance toward alcohol, as society feared alcohol's consequencs on the individual and society. And those that chose to seek out the "moonshiners" did so, sometimes at their own expense. We have done away with these laws and some still think that our country has "done wrong" in defending the use of alcohol.
The issue of abortion, with today's view of evolution, where there is "no speical creation, or "special creator" also, has to be evaluated on a rational basis. This is a scientific question and not just a moral one. An un-wed mother, though accepted more in our society than in the past, is in a crisis. And although there are many "crisis" pregnancy centers that seek to counsel those that are in "dire straights", (which is a good thing), what is to be the behavior toward those who still choose to have an abortion in a civilized society? And should society allow what some consider a medical procedure, because they do not adhere to "scripture" as interpreted by the social conservative? Nor do they acknowledge special creation? Should a civilized society allow a pregnant woman to get an abortion, as they used to in the "back alley", where death might be the liklihood? What is MOST humane and reasonable to society and the woman?
And if the woman has the baby, and chooses to keep the baby, what is society's responsibility for the child, and should society be responsible for such children and why? Where do personal and societal responsibility intersect? And at what costs to society, and the child?
A similar concern for society is sexual education. How is society to meet the needs that the family used to provide? What is society's responsibility? Is there any, and if so, what are the educators supposed to do with sex education, when there are many moral issues that all members of society do not agree upon? Should taxes go to support what I, personally do not value? If not, and it is legal, how do I resist such abuses to my conscience?
Homosexuals are also "up in arms" over their right to marry in our society. Should they have a right? Should we divide marriage, as many European countries do in civil and church unions? What is to be valued most in our society, liberty of conscience, or moral definitions, and then what church is to define the moral definition for our country, when our country does not allow a "state church'? Are our Protestant churches supposed to "submit' their consciences to the Roman Catholic Church? Or the Greek Orthodox? Or the Russian Orthodox? Who is to be the arbitrator of such societal situations?
An atheist that seeks public office should be allowed to serve our country, shouldn't they? This is a question now being considered in Asheville, N.C. where an atheist is being challenged. Is this appropriate, when our country allows liberty of conscience concerning religious values ? Just because a person doesn't define God according to my definition, should that ban them from public service? What about a Buddhist, Unitarian Universalist, or Muslim serving our country in public office?
Today's challenge is to be humane in a society that is not perfectly accomodating to our own personal social "ideals". We still need to be civil and inclusive in our discussions of the issues that concern us, when another challenges our personal convictions and beliefs. Otherwise, our society will dissolve into tribal mentalities and tribal survival instincts. And we will not represent the ideals of our Founders in upholding the values of liberty and justice for all....
As I have thought about the concept, "positive liberty", I have come to "see" an important, if not a prime value of mine, as well, as our country. "Positive liberty" means that the law and the country seeks to protect liberty. I am not saying that this is the stance of the blog by that name, nor of its contributors, Jonathan Rowe being only one. But, liberty is the highest value in American society. Some think this is a good thing, others do not. Where do we draw our lines and on what basis? (I am thinking on this myself.)
Our American society is guided by principles that allow freedom to individuals as "equal under law". But, social conservatives have always understood society as a narrowed liberty to the social norms as defined by one's social group, mostly by parochial standards. But, our society has changed over these two hundred plus years, where many of the social ills of the past were taboo, today, we do not see many, if any social taboos. And with our enlightened understanding of science, we are even more open to re-define what makes for a flourishing society. But, if science is what defines our society today, are there to be any limits upon scientific investigation? And on what rationale is science to be limited?
Crime will always be considered taboo, but even crime has become defined or specified by science. A criminal is dealt with according to an enlightened view of the person, and their motivations and not just the crime or social norm, itself. We are, after all, a "humane society".
But, what happens when society's leaders have no moral inhibition to such things that were forbidden in the past and even, go to the extent of stretching the law's intent to the benefit of the "legalist"? This is why we have such ethical problems today in our leaders, whether governmental, or corporate. And recently, these same indiscretions lay at the doorstep of the Church, as well. This is where we are today. And our country is not "greater for it, either".
Although I understand the pro-life stance, I cannot take that stance legally, because of the "humane" aspects or the personability of our country's values. Prohibition used to be America's stance toward alcohol, as society feared alcohol's consequencs on the individual and society. And those that chose to seek out the "moonshiners" did so, sometimes at their own expense. We have done away with these laws and some still think that our country has "done wrong" in defending the use of alcohol.
The issue of abortion, with today's view of evolution, where there is "no speical creation, or "special creator" also, has to be evaluated on a rational basis. This is a scientific question and not just a moral one. An un-wed mother, though accepted more in our society than in the past, is in a crisis. And although there are many "crisis" pregnancy centers that seek to counsel those that are in "dire straights", (which is a good thing), what is to be the behavior toward those who still choose to have an abortion in a civilized society? And should society allow what some consider a medical procedure, because they do not adhere to "scripture" as interpreted by the social conservative? Nor do they acknowledge special creation? Should a civilized society allow a pregnant woman to get an abortion, as they used to in the "back alley", where death might be the liklihood? What is MOST humane and reasonable to society and the woman?
And if the woman has the baby, and chooses to keep the baby, what is society's responsibility for the child, and should society be responsible for such children and why? Where do personal and societal responsibility intersect? And at what costs to society, and the child?
A similar concern for society is sexual education. How is society to meet the needs that the family used to provide? What is society's responsibility? Is there any, and if so, what are the educators supposed to do with sex education, when there are many moral issues that all members of society do not agree upon? Should taxes go to support what I, personally do not value? If not, and it is legal, how do I resist such abuses to my conscience?
Homosexuals are also "up in arms" over their right to marry in our society. Should they have a right? Should we divide marriage, as many European countries do in civil and church unions? What is to be valued most in our society, liberty of conscience, or moral definitions, and then what church is to define the moral definition for our country, when our country does not allow a "state church'? Are our Protestant churches supposed to "submit' their consciences to the Roman Catholic Church? Or the Greek Orthodox? Or the Russian Orthodox? Who is to be the arbitrator of such societal situations?
An atheist that seeks public office should be allowed to serve our country, shouldn't they? This is a question now being considered in Asheville, N.C. where an atheist is being challenged. Is this appropriate, when our country allows liberty of conscience concerning religious values ? Just because a person doesn't define God according to my definition, should that ban them from public service? What about a Buddhist, Unitarian Universalist, or Muslim serving our country in public office?
Today's challenge is to be humane in a society that is not perfectly accomodating to our own personal social "ideals". We still need to be civil and inclusive in our discussions of the issues that concern us, when another challenges our personal convictions and beliefs. Otherwise, our society will dissolve into tribal mentalities and tribal survival instincts. And we will not represent the ideals of our Founders in upholding the values of liberty and justice for all....
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Politicizing the Public Square (con.)
My last post suggested that we must allow diversity of viewpoint, if we want our Republic to survive the "cultural wars". The Establishment clause did NOT discriminate against relgious freedom, but neither did it discriminate against any other form of "being in the world". So, religion cannot be established by the government, that means a certain tradition being sanctioned under governmental power. But, religious people can form the views and opinions and have a right to assemble about political goals. This is appropriate in a free society.
We do not discriminate based upon one's choice of commitment, whether that be to one's vocation, one's spouse (except in the case of homosexuality), one's religious views, or one's political views. We are a society that believes in liberty, as our unifying identity.
Today, though the Church wants to implement its views into our courts and legislate what everyone should do. Legislation is not about character, but about conscience and values. Instead of winning the "war" with persuasion, the Church wants to control behavior legally.
Whenever one attempts to control another's behavior, there is a lack of ethical character that I think trumps the concern that the religious try to impose. One size does not fit all, as Americans are not all believers. And even believers differ in many ways from other believers in their opinons and convictions. There is diversity and this is a strength, if we hold to the ideal of tolerance, and not some form of ideology that defines what life and liberty MUST mean.
Our Founders were not all in agreement as to their personal religious "commitments' and beliefs, and they found a way to form our government around the ideals that define "freedom for Americans". Those who disagree with what is or has been legislated have an open forum in the public square to voice their opinon. But, all who voice thier opinion should also know that there should be equal access of time to those who have a different view.
What would our nation look like if we could disagree and tolerate, holding to the ideals of liberty and justice for all, not just a segmented or identified part, but for ALL of us. Would that be more like "heaven on earth"?
We do not discriminate based upon one's choice of commitment, whether that be to one's vocation, one's spouse (except in the case of homosexuality), one's religious views, or one's political views. We are a society that believes in liberty, as our unifying identity.
Today, though the Church wants to implement its views into our courts and legislate what everyone should do. Legislation is not about character, but about conscience and values. Instead of winning the "war" with persuasion, the Church wants to control behavior legally.
Whenever one attempts to control another's behavior, there is a lack of ethical character that I think trumps the concern that the religious try to impose. One size does not fit all, as Americans are not all believers. And even believers differ in many ways from other believers in their opinons and convictions. There is diversity and this is a strength, if we hold to the ideal of tolerance, and not some form of ideology that defines what life and liberty MUST mean.
Our Founders were not all in agreement as to their personal religious "commitments' and beliefs, and they found a way to form our government around the ideals that define "freedom for Americans". Those who disagree with what is or has been legislated have an open forum in the public square to voice their opinon. But, all who voice thier opinion should also know that there should be equal access of time to those who have a different view.
What would our nation look like if we could disagree and tolerate, holding to the ideals of liberty and justice for all, not just a segmented or identified part, but for ALL of us. Would that be more like "heaven on earth"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
