Cultural Diversity Has Some Limits

As has been reported in certain science/religion journals, humans are prone to process things wholisically. (I really don't know how social scientists observe or measure such things) And, it seems that such is the case with the past 24-36 hours for me.

Sunday I read and blogged on my reading about 'the Dutch" and experiencing their culture through the eyes of an artistic Washington woman. She photographed and wrote and I resonated.

My pastor preached a sermon on the relationship of marriage and Monday I started to think again about civil unions, and Church and State issues.

Last night, being bored and alone, I watched a movie based on a factual case of teen pregnancy and its effect on a local high school. Even though the drama was a "little over the top", the message was how teen pregnancy is devastating to the whole community, as well as the teens involved. Abstenance is not realistic in an idealized and impulsive teen world that is bombarded by sexual messages wherever they turn.

And this morning it was reported that many European cultures are banning the "burka", a Muslim woman's head covering. This ban is only in public places and the reason was to protect Western culture.

What do all these experiences have in common? Culture, values, and impact on others.

Although I do resonate with Dutch culture because of their historicity and openness, I also resonate with the individualism in American culture. One must evaluate what makes for a culture and why. What is important to a culture and is that of primary importance for the whole to survive. That should be the question of what is of value to further and what is not.

This brings me to matters of dress, when it concerns certain religious garb. If there is a necessary covering because of a certain climate, which was most probably the case with the "burka", then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But, when a religious tradition defines certain standards as mandantory because of the tradition's need to control the behavior of another human being, then I think it does not qualify to be upheld in a different culture. no matter the argument of "tolerance".

Religions have developed over the ages and those in power in these traditions had a vested interest in protecting their power. So, secularism would protect from a dominating religious tradition, which is necessary to remain a free society.

But, while religious traditions can protect their values for their own purposes, there are certain values that are necessary to protect for society's sake. Such is the issue of the family. Marriage is the foundation of society and it's future citizens. So, the family is certainly to be an important focus and interest for society at large. Since the family is so important many issues facing Western culture and it's families are necessary to challenge, study, and change.

The issue of teen pregnancy is of major concern and importance to society because it limits the teen's ability to further their future and it brings stress and pain on the teen's immediate family, as well as the reprecussions of the newborn's needs that might not be met by a teen mother's immature emotional responses/reactions.

Society finds itself "bringing up baby", but not in the sense of the past, when communities were close, life was slow and the child could find its place in the larger world without feeling "lost". Today social service agencies are stressed beyond measure and the Church shuns those whose behavior has not met their standard.

Conservatism wants to hold to past tradition for good reason. The family is the center of the child's identity and security. But, society has always brought challenges to past traditions and must address how to answer those challenges today. Abstinence is the "ideal", when it comes to teen sex, but the statistics do not bear out that Christian teens are any "better" at keeping their pledge of chasity than the larger teen population. This fact alone has bred many sectarian groups that try to protect their teens from such behavior. Though this is one response in our society, is this the only response the Church should sanction? Should society at large be of concern for the Church? And how is that challenge to be met?

Today's challenges reach beyond teen pregnancy, which has always challenged the mores of our society. Today the challenge to marriage and the family is homosexuality. Should homosexuals be alowed to express their innate desires within the boundaries of marriage? Or is marriage the tradition of the Church alone, and should never be condoned by the sanction of the insititution of marriage?

My pastor's sermon was about marriage and what makes a good marriage. Sex is not the recipe for a good marriage, but a relationship that is trustworthy and valued for its own sake. Children are a result of the physical intimacy of marriage, but should never be the purpose for marriage. Otherwise, many couples, whether older or barren, have no "right" to be married. We should think deeply about what our values are and why we have those values before we write off a challenge to tradition's "tradition".

Liberty of conscience was the value of our Founding Fathers. We must continue that tradition to continue the value they had of a "free society". A society that is free from domination of any kind, as tradition should not dominate a culture's values, at the expense of cultural needs for change.

At the same time, the Founder's knew that the value of tradition was the foundation of society's values, without them, society suffers superficiality and incongrence.

Globalization the Market and the Economy

Yesterday, I heard on NPR that our country's financial crisis was viewed as the collapse of a pyramid type monetary scheme. This affects the global market and globalization itself...

The question posed and the answer to the crisis was to funnel money back into the economy. Thus, the stimulus package...but also, it was stated that the money had to be given to the poor, as that was the only way to ensure that the money would be funnelled back into the economy through spending...

I have two problems with this situation. One, while it may help the economy, does it help the poor really? Doesn't it breed dependence and teach irresponsiblity, by the dependence on government hand-outs and then spending, not saving or investing? What character does it breed? And what does it do for those of us who foot the bill throught taxes?

The other problem I have with this type of solution, is two fold. One, that our economic recovery will be dependent on cheap goods that are made by "slave labor" in other countries. Not only does this produce a country dependent on cheap goods made elsewhere, but it limits investments in our own country's econonmic future. Much of our economy is already owned by other rogue nattions, anyway. (will we see the collapse of our nation to these rogue nations because of our innate greed and materialism/)

Another program last night followed a graph that showed the history of the value of our money. After the Depression ("29), our money which was based on gold, was a steady horozonial line, and gradually (only slightly) increased at 1965 (gold standard devalued) and then sharply rose, as in a vertical straight line, after the Wall Street collapse...Our money it was proposed is decreasing in value at hisorically unprecedented rate. Even those of us who have been frugal, and saved, will be poor if money is devalued at this rate. I guess it's better not to be frugal based on this kind of economic evaluation. America has always been based on a free market economy, and now, the free market is no more.

There was other news last night that Mexico and our borders are seeing more problems with gang infilteration , drug smuggling, etc. What will be the future for our children and grandchildren?

Some of us are helpless to really make changes nationally, as the average citizen is at the mercy of the elite elected officials, who have their own interests to consider...which makes me wonder how much of the stimulus package is to protect those interests or to provide pay-offs before the inevitable collapst of our economy for good...

Honor and Shame as a Modern Cultural Value?

In ancient cultures, as in some "uncultured" societies, honor and shame rule the cultural landscape. These cultures, believe that social control is held by the social mores, which are bound within tradition's values.

In today's modern West, culture has become dissolved from societie's traditions, which have inhibited some social behavior that would bring shame on the individual or family. These values were what held society "together", as they underwrote man's responsibility for and in his environment.

Cultural values are maintained or upheld by the culture's religion. Religion gives the frame of reference for what culture should be about. The conditioning of children in the home, as well as within the Church was internalized as an identification factor for the child. These were maintained in ancient culture by shame or honor. Duty was the watch-word for the child trained under tradition's influence.

But, in the modern world, the child's education exposes him to a larger frame, where these values are "challenged". The young adult, then has to assess whether he will continue to be committed to his tradition's values, or where these traditions have lost their moral vision and need revision individually or socially.

Tradition has all but died in the Western world because of many societal factors. These factors range from technological advances that discourage face to face interaction, to the break-down of the family. Yesterday's social and moral challenge was the issue of slavery in our country, while today's challenge is redefining marriage.

Every time culture is challenged to change or revise its values, there are many social tensions within the tradition-bearing messengers, whether tradition's scholars, or tradition's insitutions.

Social change is not viewed by the majority as "good" or beneficial, as it revises cherished understandings of "truth", which brings a crisis in identity. While social change is challenging to all, it is necessary and needed, so that mankind can be more understanding of neighbor and enlarge his scope to 'self".

A Follow-up on the Cross

In conventional conservative terms of discipleship, a life "well lived" would be modeled on Jesus of Nazareth. Christians can have no other way of living, thinking or being, if they are "committed believers". What would this mean to a life based on Jesus as "moral model"?

On the "bright side", charitable service and humble submission to death itself is the standard, as his was a life lived for others. This is a good moral model, but consider this for a moment....

If one's life was gifted for leadership, would Jesus life be the moral model best suited to follow? How would it be gauged that a life was meant to be modelled after Jesus? I have seen too many intelligent, gifted people sell themselves short because of the religious conviction that Jesus was the absolute model and standard for gauging humility, service, love, faith, etc....

I believe that the scholarly debate on whether Jesus existed or not is an important one. One bases their understanding on history, and the other bases their understanding of myth. History is the area of the real world, where myth is the arena of "representations" and "ideals". Leadership is the area of historical influence and important impact for change, whereas, representations are the people who represent the ideals in character and do these historical works to bringing change in the world.

The Cross, which has represented the sacrifice of Christ, has been a universal symbol for Christians. The cross in its representative form symbolizes the costs of developing the gifts that are necessary for becoming who we are meant to be and what we are meant to do. That cannot be determined by another, but ourselves alone.

Truth and Values

I came upon an article that discussed the interface of truth claims based on history and value claims based on personal conviction. The article sounded as if there was no interface, but two distinct realms, vying for affirmation. One starts with history's historical analysis and lays a foundation of True or False. The other lays claims to relativity of personal choice, conviction, and commitment. Which is true?

Is there really to be a separation in the two realms of "truth"? I don't think so. The Academy believes, and rightfully so, that the disciplines are the way to truth. This is the objective realm.

But, what about personal truth? These truth claims are also true, as this truth becomes a personal value system,. The individual develops within certain frameworks and his/her identity is formed by those "truths" of experience. While these personal identification factors are important, as they are tradition's values held within "culture", the academic understanding of "truth" is more important for humanity's sake, or the greater good.

The greater good is the public's good, which is the arena of political discourse, which should involve diversity of opinion. Opinions should be open to change, where evidence shows that it is better to "see" things another way. Change is hard for traditional understandings that maintain personal values. But, if these traditions are challenged along lines of objectivity or rationale, then there should be an openness to discussion and a tolerance for change, while at the same time, allowing others the right to choose another path. Cooperation with/in change can only be brought about with full disclosure to everyone involved, otherwise, there will always be "outsiders and insiders", which troubles the waters of change and hinders growth of understanding and acceptance.

In America's climate of diversity and tolerance, we do not have tradition tightly defined around cultural norms or values, as we value freedom of individual conscience. While conscience is formed within the frameworks of traditional social structures, America's government has protected civil rights at the expense of traditional values. Therein lies our cultural conflict, but, also our greatness. Because we value the individual conscience, even while the traditional social structures have undergone great stress and change, we, Americans are open to be educated. Education was what our Bill of Rights is about in allowing the Freedom of the Press, the Freedom of Assembly, the Freedom of Speech, ETC. We are a free nation, which should value civil discourse, which should include religious freedom and expression as well!

I think that American ideals are the great future for the Globe!

Freedom of Speech, Moral Order and the Challenge to Change

Our Constitution guaruntees each American the right to the freedom of speech. We experience our freedom with the diverse views that are represented in our news media and positions of power. While most choose to identify with their particular "color" of view, some choose to go across the borders of conformity to wisely discern how to challenge the prevailing view, so that it can be expanded. Do we do this as private citizens? Do we choose to watch, or buy something that is antithetical to our view, so that we can really learn what the issues are really about, instead of stereotyping and dismissing the other side of the story.

When we talk about the moral order of the social structures, whether government or family, we must challenge ourselves in our free society to not limit our views to a certain position, but challenge ourselves to discriminate, and discern, what and why something is important or of value. This is seeking an education of oneself and can only enlarge our world, expand our understanding and heighten and hone our reason to defend a certain conviction.

We have experienced many changes in our society. These changes have not come about without resistance from the status quo. Power structures which are based on matienance of what is, do not seek to change positions, no matter the costs. Change is costly, but especially to power. Change challenges us to consider something we haven't considered. Change can be uncomfortable, especially to those who do not want to learn or grow. Change for change's sake is also not wise, unless it is warranted for the right purposes. And purposes themselves, are not about moral or immoral, but, sometimes just a priority of value.

Suicide and Other Incidental Tragedies

Suicide happens in American culture more than other civilized cultures. Some may think it is due to the violent nature of our culture in video games and T.V. While I don't doubt that this influences individuals. I believe that there is a much deeper root.

My mother and I were talking yesterday about how our culture has changed. In her generation, and right up until mine, which was the Baby Boomer, people had a sense of community. Community was where you belonged. People knew each other and neighbors were, well, neighborly. But, when the 60's came along, something else transpired in American hearts. The American heart of individualism, which wrought the American spirit of independence, self-assurance, and a self-reliance brought upon its heels a Revolution of major proportions. While today's culture is known as a "death culture", the 60's was one of "sexual revolution".

Divorce was really a taboo in the 50's, but the 60's pushed the limits of the forbidden. "Free love", Woodstock, and drugs was the culture's defining "traditions". "Communal living" was the replacement for marriage and was only a bandaid in America's seeping hemmorahge in shaping tommorow's child.

The disconnection from the broader community through divorce, "free love", drugs, and a resentment to the status quo made a major impact on society. Police officiers were "pigs", because they maintained the order of our society and represented repression of "free expression". The monster of individualism as the epitome of identification was born. Society had no power over this "superman".

Children born and raised on a culture of social isolation through the disconnect of society's "communities of identification" are subject to an alienation in their souls, a broken-ness of heart and a de-valuation of life. As the children approach the transition years when stressors to identity transpires, these children have little resistance to the external challenges when their internal messages are so strong. These internal messages are messages of self-hate and self-disrespect.

These "handicapped" children struggle to maintain a sense of dignity and value in life. If their parent's marriage was not valued, then what makes them of value? Why were they born and why do they continue to live? A continual sense that they must fight to justify their very existence is a hard mountain to climb, when they should be struggling to develop their "gift and talents" and find out about the adventures in life. Depression and despondency can result leaving the child with any desire to live.

Suicide is the exclaimation point to a de-valued life. A life that had been de-valued by the social structures that were meant to maintain and bless it. Suicide, though experienced by family and friends as horrendously confusing and painful, is only an incidental result of a life that had long before been extinguished.