Pragmatic Solutions Don't Answer the Ideals

On another blog site, Experimental Theology, it was suggested that boundaries are a problem. I imagine that this is the way people are trying to "connect" across cultural, and racial boundaries. It is the "usefulness" of the Church's message of "Christ". (A rose by any other name is just as sweet!). And such image/myth making is how our Founders understood and formed our government.

The question of whether one internalizes their culture in such a way that one's very identity is compromised and whether one's "self" is rooted in such a way that universalizes such myths, and destroy or damage "self". Can one who has gone beyond a "group identity" give up their "self"? This is the question of alturism. It obviously has been done, but is everyone predisposed to alturistic "service"? Is it an innate nature that needs challenge to become "alturistic", or is such a challenge futile because one's tendency is genetically determined? These are questions that will transform our understanding of psychotherapy itself.

I tend to think that one's racial and cultural background is internalized to such an extent that without being exposed to a "wider world", there is no hope for any change. And I also think that it is really myth that holds the "universalization" that is necessary for "alturistic concerns". But, I also believe that there is a tension between one's genetic nature and one's cultural examples. Some might not identity with others, but be independent in their thinking and being in the world.

Mystics aren't logical in their thinking, but romantic/transcendental. "Images" make for meaning in such minds/brains. Such thinking can be useful to "sell goods" such as marketers do, but is not the way to govern. Governance needs "real life" solutions to "real life" problems, not image making images that give some ungrounded hope about tomorrow. Politicians use such salesmanship to get elected, but how many prove themselves to really be true to their compaign promises. Such is the reality of the "real world". The real world is not based on "ideal solutions" but pragmatic ones.

Our Founders recognized that man was made for "ideals" to hope and dream. This was their "promise in their creation of our government" where all men are created equal. But practically speaking, when one has a job in the real world, all are not equal in position, nor in abilities. Therefore, "equal" has a limited application.

Internationalists would like to see our nation-state export such democratic ideals. But, the reality is that we have needs at home right now, that make it pragmatically improbable if not impossibe to meets "everyone's need" for democracy or humanitarian aid...There are just too many problems for one nation (or the West) to address! Politicians are trying to come to solutions that will pacify the Internationalist and the Localist, the essentialists and the non-essentialist. And scientists are wondering if "myth" might be a pragmatic solution to "real world" problems. Others think that the problem is religion itself, that uses myth to promote such "self-annilhilation" or "alturistic concern".

American Values In a Global Climate

Plato said that one had to be dead if there was no more war. I agree, as men are always going to be self-interested, whether they recognize it or not. Even one's ideas about "God" are "self interested" claims, because this is how we define ourselves. People all define themselves by the groups that hold to their values, some knowing that this is a chosen value, while others less so.

Tonight, we watched "Black Hawk Down". Our military went into Somalia and fought against horrendous odds bravely and many were lost. One comment I will never forget was made by one of the Somalian warriors to a prisoner. He told the prisoner that irregardless of America's desire to promote democracy through gunfire, as a means to negotiation; Somalians believe that gunfire IS negotiation. Victory is only declared when their side has won against those that desire to change their culture. That was a sobering comment and made me wonder why we attempt to change these types of cultures.

The young men who represented our military were holding to their ideals of life and liberty and willing to fight to see that all people live free. This is the American ideal and they were defending not just their country's values, but protected each of their "buddies". They would not leave anyone behind, as they believed in the value of each indiviudal life! Their courage was amazing.

One wonders why we were in Somalia in the first place. Why were our men used in an environment that didn't seem to matter? Power does not seem to understand or value the costs to those that it holds under its command. It is an unusual person that understands and values the "little man" enough to not take lightly sending our men into harm's way. Our military are committed to serve any command, so it is imperative that our men in uniform be valued as to their life. They are fighting for our liberty.

When humanitarian aid is confiscated, why do Americans think that it is obligatory to follow up? Are we loyal to U.N. demands, and not our own Sovereignty? Or does American have some vested interest that the common American is unaware of?

 The movie portrayed that hunger creates hostilities between rivalling groups. So, is preventing hunger a means to create peace? Then, what about the dictators or the corruption in society that makes it impossible to claim "the humane"? These cultures are not prone to change, unless they are killed or their power is taken from them.

The honor code of Westpoint claims that fighting for the "right" is not tolerating those that are corrupt or are corrupting influences in a society! One "hero" at the end said that he was asked whether he sought to be a hero and he said that one doesn't seek to be a hero, that becoming a hero happens. Becoming a hero is the result of duty! It is doing one's job in the military.

Traditional and Progressive Tension

Progressive views are important to evaluate, as they are what is on the "cutting edge" of any given subject. This is the challenge of reason's embrace of discovery. But, just as important is tradition's "tried and true" values of experience. The traditional view is verified through experience, while the progressive seeks to experiment.

I learned that my family had wanted to try the "progressive", radical, or experimental approach in addressing "the back issue" of one of our family members. But, was this appropriate to all of the needs of this family member? That is one of debate for the family and is ultimately one of personal decision and choice by the patient.

The conservative or traditional approach is to manage pain through physical therapy, continued exercise, pain pills and cortisone shots. We will have to "wait and see" if this is enough to get the patient back on his feet. Otherwise, he must face the possibility of back surgury, which could be a radical step for his age of 93.

There is presently available a non-invasive type of surgury that fuses the spine with "super-glue" to strengthen it. The family has wished that this type of progressive treatment would be embraced by his family physician. But, family physicians have differences in philosophy or approaches to medicine. And the family should not have been surprised to find that this particular physician was not particularly pre-disposed to a progressive medical philosophy.

Traditional and progressive views are both important to hold in tension in free societies, for each holds a value to free societies. Traditional views are based on the wisdom from experience, while progressive views are open to the creative elements of innovation and experiment.

The progressive and "conservative" or traditional view was evident when my family member and I watched two Supreme Court judges discuss their differences on the Constituion, while he was in the hospital. It was fascinating to see how the two differed in their analysis, concerns and approaches to one document that defines our "American way of life".

Wisdom sees, but is bound within the contexts of time, while experimentation is based on reason's genius or creativity or the needs of society for change. Roots and innovation are necessary fodder for society to flourish. And the Founders used both to create "a more perfect union". We cannot err on either side if we desire to further the cause of democracy in America.

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!

Value as a Means of Expressing the Incarnation

In thinking about how Barbu understood the integrative and disintegrative values in a democracy and how they have to be maintained "in tension", I think that the Quadralateral is a good way to analyze these values and how they are incarnated in one's life.

Scripture is a means for moral and religious value but I would think that Scripture being a defining element of the political realm would be limiting freedom of conscience, or aesthetic value. Ethics in this regard would be an undermining value to religious or moral tradition's understanding of value.

Tradition also upholds moral values, as it has been defined by the Church (or other religious authority), but Tradition also maintains religious value in social norms. Again, without reason, tradition runs rough-shod over cultural adaptation and change in regards to ethics.

Experience underlines how the individual formulates "his world" within a religious (or anti-religious), and political realm. Experience cannot be formed "outside of itself" without limiting individuality. Man's reason is useful to analyze, categorize and determine his course. So, experience does not uphold tradition or religion, as the "form" must be individually understood and embraced. But, experience does uphold aesthetic value, leaving room for individual's to "find their place" in this world. This is the ethic of human rights and personal identity.

Reason is used to understand, evaluate, and formulate, which is the scientific value of modernity. Although fragmentation has occurred within modern society because of science and rationality, isn't freedom about that very fragmentation? And isn't freedom what life is about?

Life without justice (rights) is a life that is defined by "outside sources" of religion and tradition. And this is not what modern democracies uphold or value.

And this is why our democratic Representative Republic is of ultimate value to me!


Reason upholds

Reading on Dictatorship and Democracy...

I have been picking up a book the last few weeks (which I would suggest doing in "one sitting", as it is more conducive to process fully), called, "Democracy and Dictatorship", by Zevedei Barbu. It is a fascinating book, but the part of it that refers to what I have been addressing today is on unifying and diversifying elements within democracy. These are elements of value.

On page 66-68, he refers to the diverse values of
1) Religion is a defining value in a democracy, which is characterized by a "feeling of supra-individual and transcendental order". Religious values via anthropological studies show that religious values bring cohesion in behavioral standards. These values create social norms.

2)Aesthetic values are based on the concept of form. These values do not bring cohesion, even in the relgious realm, because the individual must create his "own world" of meaning through experience.

3.) Scientific values are based on analytical analysis of what works. It is integrative only as long as it establishes relationship between facts, but disintegrates the answers to life with only questions.

4.)Political values are integrative, as they help to form group dynamic, so goals can be accomplished.

5.)Moral value is integrative as moral action is taken as long as there is a consciousness of being a part of a group or society.

6.)Economic value is disintegrative in modern societies, as the individual seeks ownership.

Since the Renaissance, there has been a tendency for these values to undermine religious value and a tendency for autonomy in each cardinal value. A balance among the integrative and disintegrative values are important for democracies.

I think that this is the "fix", public debate and discourse concerning these values within the context of historical development after the Renaissance.

The Question of Social Justice and Democracy

We in America "fight" over social justice, as social justice guaruntees what some deem to be "bigger government" and an undermining of self responsibility. Is Democracy to undermine distributive justice? Or does distributive justice undermine democracy? These are questions that have puzzled many and continue to be at the forefront of our "culture wars".

Christians that believe in a literalizing of the Judeo-Christian Scripture believe in upholding distributive justice, as do Democrats. Distributive justice guaruntees education, healthcare, and minimun income. Social justice should be underwritten by "good government".

While these believe in government guarunteeing these rights, others think that civil and political rights should be enough to guaruntee human flourishing. Government should not intervene in the affairs of men, but should only protect civil and political liberties. The individual should govern himself and create a place for himself without government support.But, what is the responsibility of the government toward the young or those who cannot create the "good life" for themselves?

Public education is upheld as a right by most Americans, but lately the homeschool movement has gained ground in education. Parents believe it is their right and duty to educate their young. These homeschooling families believe that government would provide for a secularized education that they find appalling. Do these parents have a right to educate their children? Or does the State have a duty to see that the child recieves a full education, either through mandating what qualifies a parent to educate their child, or through limiting homeschooling altogether. These are issues that breed "culture wars".

Our nation is a religious nation, although we believe in religious freedom, therefore, mandating anything at the federal level is a "red flag" to an American. States in America have the right to legislate how homeschoolers will function, and what requirements will be demanded, if any.

On the heels of homeschooling is the issue of Scripture and the belief of "Creation" and the evolution debate. Evolution has been approved by the eduational community as a value that must be taught in our public schools. But, what of the homeschoolers? Are they to be under this legislation? Does government have a right to protect the education of its young? Or does government have a duty to protect the right of the parent and their duties toward their child?

The conflict over our Greek democratic ideals, and the Jewish/Christian understanding of justice is at issue. Do we limit individual rights or do we limit individual freedoms? Do we believe in freedom of religion, and at what costs, especially in the climate of radicals? Or do we discriminate against religious convictions and on what basis do we determine when to discriminate? Surely, we wouldn't want to discriminate altogether, would we?

The issue of Church and State has been a long and difficult one, but it is the basis of our democratic process and what forms our society's value of diversity. We just don't know where the unity lies...

"Animal Nature" and Human Values

The naturalists believe that humans must be trained, just like any other animal, to "do what is right". Their understanding of "right" is whatever they think will fulfill "ultimate value". And sometimes they seek to undermine another "right" (or another's "right") to justify what they consider "ultimate".

What is "ultimate value"? Today the politically correct value the environment, redistribution of wealth for the sake of the poor, the elimination of power for the sake of equality, and the "whole" at the expense of the "part". Globalism takes the place of the "Nation-State" in this way of thinking.

Each politically correct value is upheld as a universal value, for the "common good" of humanity. The problem of veiwing one's personal "ultimate value" as a universal, is the devaluing of the other side of the paradox of "truth", which hinders democratic discourse in freedom of speech and thought. Tyranny is the result of suppressing dissent.

When one values the environment as the "ultimate", then other values, such as human life, is devalued. Humans are considered the "pollutants", who should be limited or eliminated.

The "ultimate value" of alleviating poverty does not take into consideration the way the market works in appealing to "human nature" and inevitably leads to furthering poverty, rather than alleviating it. This is not to say that capitalism does not have its downfalls, in regards to human nature, but it is the best way to further personal responsibility that flourishes corporate "need".

The "ultimate value" of eliminating power dissolves leadership of the means of determining policy decisions. America's Founders did not eliminate power, but balanced power through division of functions. And the "checks and balances" to power from this division is what has "protected" our nation from overt corruption.

I do not believe that "wholism" is a "better" way of viewing life, as it presumes too much. No human, group, or society can make absolute claims of "wholistic" understanding, as we are bound within our limitaions of context, personal history, private ability, personal interests and potentiality.

The only "ultimate" is the individual, because the individual is the universal particularized. And the "universal" particularized is "Wisdom" personified. And the best way for individual particularization (individuation) is our "way of life" in a democratic Republic.

The U.N. Talk and Obama's Vision

I listened to Obama talk at the U.N. on radio and T.V. And I was impressed with his commitment to serve and represent American interests. But, he called for all nations to step forward in helping America fulfill the responsibility toward many social issues. I was glad that we were not going to be footing the whole bill.

Although he gave a great speech and many were positive in their reviews, I am a little wary of Lybian and Iranian interests. They did not seem to be interested in applauding our president during his speech, although Kadafi did acknowledge Obama's speech when he took the "stage".

I just wonder how much power can be distributed to the likes of these and still hold to democratic ideals? It doesn't seem that those who do not give their own countries a democratic type of government would lend an ear to ideals of "life and liberty".

China seemed from some accounts of their people to be open to taking a center stage place in the power re-distribution. America isn't to be the super-power anymore? Is this because we owe so many people and are really a "slave nation" today? But, the rhetoric was strongly focused toward a unified "one world".

On NPR there was a program taking calls to get feed-back worldwide on the speeches. One lady asked who would be making the ultimate decisions concerning a nation if a "one world governemt came into being. This is an important question, as it reveals that power will not be broad-based. The commentator answered that, of course, the decisions would be made by the
monied". Will the "monied" be a nation, like China, or will the "monied" be a group of people? These are pertinent questions in understanding what we can expect in the future in regards to our very "way of life".

I imagine there is little we can do globally, but we can do something nationally and I hope we will. The "Tea Parties" are a start and I think that if enough people raise their voices, then certainly someone will hear. We must try and not give up hope for our nation's recovery.

I will wait now and see if Obama does what he says for Amercian interests. And how much he upholds the values of human freedom and dignity to choose our own destinies. This is mandantory if we are to live in the future as free people.

Political Ideology, Theology, and " Black Power"

Men must exist with material goods to survive. Clothes, food and shelter are all a necessity to maintain an environment for human flourishing. But, is this all that provides for human flourishing? I don't think so.

I think that humans must have the freedom to pursue their dreams, which provides hope that their choices will not be undermined. This is what a free and open democratic system provides. But, there are those who want to use "morality to affirm the basic necessities, but limit or confine what or how an individual "should" live their lives in seeking their "hope for their futures". These are communists, as they believe that "moral government" is a government that functions to provide the basics, but limits personal choice and freedom to pursue one's destiny.

As a democratic representative Republic, we are prone to loose these freedoms we value. Alexander Tyler, a British historian warned:
"democracies cannot exist as a permanant form of government; they will only exist until the people find that they can vote money for themselves from the treasury and until the politicians find that they can distribute that money to buy votes and perpertuate themselves in power. Hence, democracies always collapse under weak fiscal policy to be followed by a dictatorship.".

I fear that we have come to this point, where our fiscal irresponsibility has "come calling". We are a nation in debt because we have over-indulged ourselves. Money or making money is not the problem, but greed and power are. And because we can't "go any further" in debt, America plays into the hands of another type of ideology, as the solution; communism.

Dimitri Mannilski said in the Lenin School for Political Warfare in the 1930's;
" War to the hilt between communism and capitalism is inevitable. Today, of course, we are not strong enought to attack. Our time will come in thirty or forty years. To win, we shall need the element of surprise. The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep. So we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace moverment on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends. As soon as their guard is down, we will smash them with our clenched fist."

How will communists gain such power over America? Leonid Brezhnev said in 1973; "Our aim is to gain control of the two great treasure houses on which the West depends; The energy treasure house of the Persian Gulf and the minerals treasure house of central and southern Africa".

But, communism is not the only enemy we "fight", we also fight Islam. Where in the world are communist regimes, political/theological ideologies holding sway and Islam is the main religion? Africa.

Black power is understood to be in "Liberation theology", which is communistic at its foundation. A classless society is not possible without a ruling class that "oversees". And dictators and elitist classes was not the foundation of our form of government. Amercia believed in a "balance of power" and a representative democratic republic. We have become what the British historian warned against, a nation that can "buy votes". There should be no special priviledge based on anything other than a person's hard work, self-governance, responsibility and his own choice. But, we are fast becoming the dictatorship that is the result of a "failed democracy".

How about term limits for Congress?

Troubling Questions and the CIA

The CIA protects American interests in bringing information to our governmant. These government employees do their work under risk of their lives. They do their work for the sake of our countrie's continued freedoms. Some have questions about which is of higher value; American security or human rights.

The CIA has used various means to obtain certain ends and have been sucessful in many cases. But, the question of how they have gone about their interrogation has caused some consternation over abuses of human rights. But, what of those who are not forthcoming with information that would undermine our freedom and cause great harm worldwide? What is the basis of discerning "justice", when certain individuals are dangerous for justice at large?

Suspected criminals have been given their 'miranda rights". We are a nation that believes that one is innocent until proven guilty. But, how are undercover operatives to be "found out", if not with another 'undercover operative"? The disadvantage to the CIA in getting information from those who do not value human life is troubling. Terrorists can go free, because the CIA is bound by "human rights". How is the CIA going to do their job? Will it require them to get more 'evidence' of criminal behavior? And how are they going to do this with the terrorists?

The Modern Age was an age of Reason. We based our determinations of "law and justice" on the Constitution, which was to protect our citizens. Today's post-modern and the multi-cultural "melieu" has muddied the waters and bred many questions regarding nation-states and their very existence.

Now, after determining that there was nothing further to "investigate", and that we would let "bygones be bygones", we are re-considering investigating these charges. I thought that once a determination was made "under law" then one could not be tried again. Can a person be re-tried for a trial already determined?

The Democrats are crying that we are a nation "defined by laws". I quake to think what lawyers will do to justice, if they want to...Lawyers have ways to manevuer around "common sense".

What will happen to those who would want to commit their lives to the CIA? Will they desire to commit to the government with no guarantee of governement protection? What will happen to those that are presently in the CIA? Will they look elsewhere for jobs and will those that stay be so cautious that they will become insignificant to our national security? Will the protection of American citizens and the values of liberty be dismissed because of the value of life over liberty?

These are the questions that face the 'think tanks", politicians, and the American people.

Do You Hear?

Hearing takes time. The time to listen and weigh. Judgment is made according to how one assesses the "need". And needs are various and many.

What should be the ultimate concern and value of America? Some think that America should boil down their distinctiveness to "commonality". I think not.

Our distinction is what has made us 'great'. America's distinction is our freedom of conscience. And freedom of conscience has nothing to do with "common concern".

"Common concern" has to do with forming what is to be addressed. But, before anyone can address "common concern", there must be an awareness of what all the "concerns" are.

It seems to me that the political climate has not allowed "free exchange" of "concerns". Our leaders have not heard our voices, as we and they have assumed that our "concern" has no value.

I am heartened that many have made their voices known in the town hall meetings over the issue of healthcare. The anger is evidence that people are "concerned" and are aware of how their leaders are not hearing them.

Americans are concerned for their way of life and their country's very existence, as a distinct nation. But, leaders are only concerned for making sure that their "position" is protected by the "images" they "present".

Where is the Real leader, who takes to heart his contituency? Public servants are to serve the "public interest", at the public's bequest.

Our nation is facing the biggest challenge to remain solvant. We should not be talking about healthcare, when we cannot take care of our own. "Concern" for our own existence must be our focus, otherwise, we will not have any means to continue to further our democratic ideals abroad. And that would be the height of tragedy.

Politicizing and Politicing

I have become a skeptic that anything happens apart from politics. This brings me to the point of questionig the present political situation and policies.

Does anyone believe that we are to be responsible citizens and accountable to the laws that rule our land? Is this what being a Christian is about? Or is being a Christian about allowing others to be irresponsible?

Are we to look the other way when there is dishonesty, hyposcrisy, and abuse of power in our leaders? Are we to be honored as citizens in a representative republic by being informed of the discussions on policy and our "voices" considered in the process?

I think that the whole healthcare concern is a passionate ideological grab for power over the American people. And it is being done in a dishonest and power driven way. This is not what our country should be about.

Our economy is suffering under "social concerns". Warren Buffet has warned that we are headed to be a "banana Republic" if we do not turn back this downturn. But, the economy has been demonized as "greed", "love of money" and self-centeredness. Is this "blanket statement", really true across the board? Are Americans greedy, money hungry, self-centered individuals?

We have seen our country's economy "politicized" and our very founding principles undermined for the "common good". We were founded on individual right of conscience. The conscience of religious freedom and public interest. But, the "public interest", is not what is now called the "common good", as we were never a "socialist republic".

Healthcare is being politicized on a "moral basis" of "taking care of the poor". While we have built our nation on hard work and reward, we see our country being "called into question". While there is no doubt that Wall Street and others have mis-used our system to the detriment of all, we cannot throw the "baby out with the bath water".

I am concerned for our country's future and hope that our leaders will listen, as well as govern. We are not a people that is used to submission at the costs of "voice".

What I Am Reading...

I have been reading and am committed to finish some books within the week.

One is on "Ten Philosophical Mistakes" by Mortimer J. Adler, I have just finished. I have learned that there is a difference in intellect and sense perception. This difference distinguishes the human from the animal kingdom.

I have also learned that potentialities are what distinguishes the differences in behavior from the animal and human. And I believe that liberty is the only means of attaining and developing potential.

I also am thinking through "natural state", "the state of nature" and "social contract", and the development of "constitutional government" as the "ideal" of the real historical understanding of "context".

Another book I am beginning, " The Discovery of Freedom" (Man's Struggle Against Authority), by, Rose Wilder Lane and "A Plea for Liberty", a mixture of writers writing on the topic of liberty.

I plan on furthering my understanding and education in what has interested me.

I find the topic of liberty always pertinent to man's "identity", but especially in today's climate of maintaining a "social agenda", which politicizes the "moral", at the costs of other necessary truths. I must resolve what I believe to be the undermining of what makes the human different from the animal. And that is the diversity and uniqueness that is only granted under a "constitutional republic" ( or is it a "liberal democracy"?).

Names, Meaning and Value

"Dem dat's fighten words" is a common colloqualism. Words have meanings. And meanings define values. These are the things that life is "made of". And this is why there is so much diversity in the world. I couldn't live without diversity. Life would be dull and colorless. I just "react" to those who think their meanings are ultimate and absolute, because they de-value the diversity that makes life valuable.

Last night my grand-daughter was here. She is almost 3. She is confident and very "dramatic". I love to engage her. But, last night I was not cognizant of "where she was" and she ended up crying.why and how did this happen?

I began to point to others of her family members and give them different "names". I pointed to myself and said 'Mommy". She started out with "correcting me", but started to look befuddled and then began to cry. I recognized this as an indication that I was "confusing her world". She had names that defined people and they were defined by the roles that they signified. I was asking for her to think beyond her capabilities. So, of course, we brought comfort to her.

The challenge to educators is to expand, enlarge and encourage growth in the intellectual realm. Educators exist in many areas of our world, not just in the academic. Educators seek to bring understanding and and expansion of knowledge, so that others can grow beyond their narrow definitions and narrow and limiting worldviews.

When someone asks "what is of ultimate value", the answer will depend upon how the person has been educated. Those indoctrinated into Christian faith will have different responses depending on their understanding of faith and how broad their exposure to Christian experience is. I find that religion, for the most part, does define one's life in narrow ways.

Conventional morality is about what 'tradition' says is "correct". But, is tradition right, necessarily? Or is tradition only an aspect to a cultural ideal or norm? What is of greatest value? God, humanity, life on this planet, the environment, healthcare, growth in knowledge? The answer will depend on one's highest values in life. Religious tradition defines the highest value on an understanding of faith, while education values knowledge, and scientific endeavor values medicine and other research opportunities.

Our country does not define another's life for them, as we believe that though the individual is a social animal, he is also an independent moral agent, that must decide for himself. The individual is given opportunities by the social contexts he exposes himself to and then is free to decide what is of ultimate value and importance. There is no "right and wrong" answer, as values are about clarity of purpose and vision for one's life.

This is why the value of our country in protecting freedom is of ultimate value to and for me. I value freedom because it means that the individual does not have to confine himself to another's definition of what constitutes "greatest value". Freedom means that the individual is guarunteed justice, because the individual is a reponsible moral agent that can determine his own course.

Usually "war" transpires when others are protecting their own values. Fear of another's intrusion upon the values most held dear become self-protective walls. But, how do we engage those whose worlds are so confining and defined, that they will not engage. Diversity is not a cultural value. In fact, diversity is the very name to be destroyed.

In our world climate, Obama seems to be making attempts to change the world through diplomatic efforts. This is a noble cause, but I question how diversity can be maintained when the "absolutist laws of Sharia" will not allow such diversity. Whenever one labels another's difference with "Satan", then one cannot be rationally engaged. Religion does not allow for rational engagement because it is based on emotional connection to cultural identification in behavoiral terms, as well as a specified view of "God". This is not change that will come to the radical through diplomatic engagement. And this is why it is necessary that leaders of countries are rationally engaged with affirming difference. We have done this in the past, but with devastating consequences. And in our world climate, where the enemy is not readily identified, how do we protect the values of freedom and diversity? Do we engage countries that are dictatorial? Can we trust these?

I personally "fear" what Obama is doing, as I do not trust those who hold absolute power. And leaders who identify with those who hold absolute power are also, IMO, also untrustworthy, because those who do not hold the value of freedom and justice for all, which is a holding to the "balance of power", do not hold to the values of a liberal democracy....or a Repreentative Republic. These are those that use position to bring change, but at a costs to those under them. And this is why there has been much discussion about the "czars" that are independently appointed by this administration.

Obama has African roots and he maintains that equality is a global issue, not just a national one. This is disturbing to me because national interests (The Constitution) is the pledge of the President to uphold the values determined by our Founders. Can a globalist do this and remain true and trustworthy to "his people".

This is my concern, as words have meaning, but we must question what meaning is made when we hear those that hold values that are in opposition to ours. Then, we can be more educated about how to engage the public for the public good.

Identity, Liberty, and Multiculturalism/Postmodernity

Many in the academic world have made much of the "talk" of postmodernity, or multiculturalism. This view affirms what defines "context", "groups of identity", and the values that these adhere to in behavioral standards. While I agree that all groups have to be defined, and that identification factors are not invalid, is there something that is "more" important and on what basis does one determine what is most important?

Yesterday, I wrote about how I was struck by Jenny Sandford. She had defined herself apart from these group identifiers, at least in her principles. She was able to evaluate a situation that was very personal from an objective viewpoint. She has her boundaries, although she respected others their right and understood that right in giving a "negative response" to the press.

Last night I listened to one of the contributors on a blog site I follow, American Creation. His name is Jonathan Rowe. He is libertarian in political commitment, but the others on this blog site range in their political commitment from fundamentalist evangelical, Mormonism, to agnostic. These political commitment are direct corrolaries to their individual understandings of the Founder's intent in regards to American principles.

Jonathan said that the Establishment Clause has not been definitively defined by the Supreme Court. The Establishment Clause has to do with religious freedom and the State and whether our country is a "Christian nation" or not. The Founders personally had various religious convictions, or commitments. This is why I believe they were libertarian in their understanding of religious traiditions.

While religious freedom defines our founding and protected the individual's conscience within a group identity, I am concerned about these very freedoms being undermined when it comes to certain ideals, as it concerns the Enlightenment. These ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are universal. But, is the universal personal, or is the universal communal?

I believe that the universal is personal within a communal/universal context. Therefore, individual/civil liberties trump communal/religious rights. This view protects or upholds human rights. And I believe that those who value women should adhere to this view. Traditions do not value women, for the most part.

Does the State protect religious conviction when human rights to education, medical care, and dignity are de-meaned, ignored, suppressed or subverted? And yet, where will religious freedom be, if there is not freedom from State intervention? Civil liberties protect both human rights and religious freedom. Freedom of conscience as it regards these issues is the most important value, in my opinion.

So, today's discussion is over the individual/personal, group identification/ multiculturalism, postmodernity/ modernity, dichotomies. Where do you think the lines should be when it comes to religious freedom, individual conscience, multiculturalism, immigration policy, assimilation, etc. All of these issues are at stake in our free society. We must address them to remain free.

Conforming Tradition

Those who subscribe to social construction must understand how tradition "works", so that a successful re-definition can be accomplished. Re-defining tradition is important to bring about transformation. The question today is what is tradition's role, when science is understanding human development in such a way that undermines the prominent role of tradition in past centuries.

Tradition, in the past, when there were hierarchal understandings of government, brings about "hope" to oppressed people, by giving a future judgment to the injustices suffered today. The "constructors" of tradition (theologians/philosophers) also use "moral modelling" to give a "vision of life", so that moral example can be followed. These images, whether real historical figures, or mythical ones are literary devices that "conform" the individual to group norms and values. Because these cultures are hierarhcal in governing, the "role model" is one of personal sacrifice. The personal sacrifice of one class for another is the moral model for an aristocratic class, which is what "inspired" Luther to bring about the Reformation in questioning the Church authorities. Tradition is not based on democratic ideals. The book of Hebrews in the Christian scripture and "The Chronicles of Narnia" are two examples of these types of Christiaan literature.

The social sciences are revealing that men develop through the use of education, where critical thinking is valued and helps the individual to come to terms with his own values, apart from traditional conformity. This is not to say that tradition will not become a dominant value to one such educated, as the indiviudal must determine for himself what is of ultimate concern. But, it does mean that the individual could leave tradition's role and re-define himself according to his own personal interests and values.

Traditional cultures depend on religion to maintain their identification and define values. These values are interpreted by religious authorities that rule and dominate another's conscience and choice. These cultures do not value freedom in any form, as freedom of information through academia, the media, and life choice would undermine tradition's role of dominance and determination, which would limit and undermine the aristocrat in their purpose of maintaining "social order", whether the "aristocrat" is a political or religious leader.

Do We Have a Right to Exist?

Much has been promoted in the media about "social justice", humanitarian aid, and "moral concern" for those without opportunity. Although these are ideals that most people assent to, is it practical? The real world must define itself. And definitions are not inclusive, as diversity limits one's ability to exclude. Without boundaries, no individual, group, or nation can exist. Therefore, definition is important.

Social justice has been suggested for "all people" or humanity at large. But, while liberalism promotes inclusion, it limits the boundary of definition and dissolves difference, which practical policy issues demand.

One of the major areas of policy facing our nation for the last decade has been the issue of immigration. Should immigrants have the same advantages that a citizen does, in the name of "human rights"? Where does a sovereign nation deserve the right to discriminate in making policy decision based on the best interest of the nation? And where do national interests, such as national security trump expediency, outcome and limitations to resources for our own people? And where does national security trump "human rights"?

These are not easy questions to resolve, in light of our nation's ideals and beliefs about natural rights.

It seems obvious if we give healthcare to those who have not shown a desire to "bear the burden" of our countrie's interests by becoming a citizen and learning the language, then we, the people, bear the burden alone. And we are dooming ourselves to subvert our cultural interests of freedom.

While in Europe, the European Parliament held elections. The Dutch, who are known to be the most tolerant of all countries, voted Gert Wilders into office. He respresented the "Freedom Party" which promotes Dutch national interests. As a whole, all European nations were swinging back to conservative policies, at a time when globalism is trying to 'win the day'.

Gert Wilders has spoken out aggressively against the immigration of those whose culture is undermining his own. In fact, he was invited and dis-invited to the British Parliment to present his film concerning Islam. Our country invited him to present his film before Congress, which I hope has made an impact and impression about the costs of tolerance.

Last year, my husband and I went to a science and religion conference in Madrid. The conference was on Choice, Free Will, and Tolerance. How does a culture that adheres to diversity (tolerant) allow choice and free will to the intolerant?

Policy demands answers and solutions to real problems. Policy problems do not solve themselves. We must address these issues theoretically and practically, if we want our nation's interests to survive an onslaught of exclusive religious claims! Otherwise, we WON'T have a right to exist!

Power Politics and Freedom of Information

Knowledge is power and if you can keep others from knowing what is going on behind the scenes, then the people in the know can thrawt the social contract. I hope there are people aware of what is going on in our country to hold others accountable and not allow power to rule access to knowledge about our nation's business.

Social contract is the result of negotiating interests, coming to terms with differences, giving equal respect between employer and employee. A contract is a binding agreement of known variables. Our representatives are to represent the electorate's interests, not their own interests. But, it seems that sometimes interests collide and this is what power politics determines, who wins the argument. but, these arguments cannot be had, if power limits the discussion in the first place.

Social contract is based on democratic ideals, where reason is the cash of discussion. Woe be to those who live in societies where freedom of information is limited and power determines "what will be". We will no longer be free, but enslaved to those who think they do "what's right", because they are "in the know".

Questions About Trust

This morning while checking my e-mail, I had gotten a comment on the "A Few Good Men" entry. In responsing to the comment, I suggested that although support systems were important for the young lawyer to pursue justice, that trust was the foundation of receiving the support. That got me thinking...

Trust is earned by someone's belief in what you do, or who you are. Trust cannot be manipulated, as trust is about relationship. Trust is about understanding and accountability. One does not listen to those who have abused, misused, or disregarded the relationship. Relationship has to be mutually edifying for it to be healthy.

Mutuality in relationship is about allowing differences, respecting rights, supporting opportunities, and giving hope. It is the social contract, where there is equal respect and regard for another's life and values.

In all relationships, there is a give and take, at least if there is healthy mutuality. Hierarchal forms of relationship can be healthy as long as there is also respect and encouragement from "both ends", not a demand to rights, but a trust that there will be "a right". Respect is foremost in regards to trust in relationship.

I find that when workers felt their rights were being abused that they sought recourse in just compensation for their work. One wonders now, what just compensation means, when those in other countries will do the work for less. Cultural living standards differ, and the American worker is disadvantaged by his own culture's standard, which has become his own.

While the worker had sought rights and won "justice", the executive has used his power to exploit and use his position and power to maintain even a higher standard of living. There seemed to be an attitude of entitlement on both ends, which built resentment and a lack of mutual respect and trust. Outsourcing jobs was a means to make more profit for the executive to "look good" and to exploit the system he had created, and benefit the stock holders, while the worker's right to work was devalued and undermined., creating an esculating environment between the worker and the boss.

I do not know the solution, but I do know that our globalized economy has exasperated the problems in corporate and private interests. Now, the government gets involved, which compounds the problem and creates a quadmire of beauraucracy that is hard to hold accountable. The citizen cannot be informed because it takes a legal mind to understand. And sometimes I think this is a convienient way to enlarge one's pockets of interests.

There is not to be a separation between a public servant's job and the private citizen's right to know, which is what the "tea parties" have sought to "voice". This is a "voice" for public good and social justice, but there are other "voices" that do not need respect. These are the attitudes of the Taliban or the antagonist. One can have convictions or opinions without oppressing another or demanding that the other agree and behave accordingly. Sometimes when difference is too large to bridge, it is best to allow room, so disagreement and tension is dispelled.

In international relations, negotiation and diplomacy is a tedious job. Cultural divides become widened whenever religions dominant opinions, ideas and convictions. Religion can be dangerous because the religious believe that their view hold "ultimate truth or value" and to disregard it, is to disregard God. The fundamentally inclined do not trust those who do not regard God as the foremost object of desire and focus. It is difficult to negotiate with those whose opinions are underwritten by "god himself".

I find that the religious are the hardest and the most difficult to broaden and engage in "public ways", as the walls are built too high. They feel that the very definition of themselves as religious is threatened by engaging the "secular" world. Trust in life, itself, is not a value to these religious "idealists". They find their comfort in the "next world", where they are promised justice.

Justice should be sought in the here and now, as that is all we really know and have. And American government seeks justice in the here and now in seeking to establish democracy abroad.