One of the first things that one learns in a language is to understand the meaning withint context. Without understanding the context, one is bound to misunderand what is spoken or written. Today's poltical correctness has done just that. It takes "racial slurs" out of their contextual situatedness and misunderstands the intent of such "racial slurs".
Today's "political correctness" doesn't leave any room for affirming social norms. Social norms are what first formulated the "racial slurs", but the political correctness of our society isn't able to use such "racial slurs" for fear of personal insult, or being divisive. Political correctness has undermined the cohesiveness in our cultural values and norms. As a result, our society suffers.
Martin Luther King, Jr. epitomized a social transformation in our society, but such transformation was not to usurp the values and norms of culture itself, such as hard work and industry, but to call the nation to a more ethical or principled judgment about "people of color". He wanted the nation to be united by "character", which upheld the values of creative industry, hard work, productivity and giving back to society, as well as giving equal opportunity to those who'd been second class citizens.
Today's "civil rights" mentality undermine the "right to free speech" when it has racial implications. Such speech occurs because of the value of social norms. The "slave-owining class" had certain expectations about their human capital. They wanted strong and able men and women to work the farm, do the housework and alleviate the upper class from similar duties. But this "norm" came about almost 100 years after our Founding. Our Founding was based in the Protestant work ethic, where all that were able bodied helped.
The Protestant Work Ethic was the hard work and industry that produced prosperity for the "founding generation". The Indians were useful to help the founding generations to know how to cultivate and live "in the wild". But, while the "founding generation" learned from the Indian, the Indian was not viewed as an equal, but as a "savage". The savage acts out of instinct and not out of rational principle. Such judgment upheld the social value of law and education. A civilized society did not function on or by instinct, but by a government. Today, mulitculturalism undermines American society and it 'founding values' because of political correctness.
Racial slurs like, "He's acting like a nigger", has a valid use in language and culture. "He acts like a nigger" came from a culture that valued hard work from the slave. Is the value of hard work still important to our culture, or is "political correctness" a more important value to our society? What we have lost is both the distinction of character when it comes to the worker or the "owner". The worker should work to the best of his ability, while the owner has an obligation to treat the employee with equal respect and honor. Our cultural value is "equal under law".
I think "political correctness" has undermined our society's virtues and furthered society's vices. No longer is there any speech that discriminates, or oppressess. And there can't be any social taboos, or mores that are limited by such language. Surely, one would not want to be labeled as "acting like a Nigger", freeloading off their "masters". Nor would one want to be labeled "acting like a Jew", and be understood to be materialistic and greedy. These colloquialisms have lost their force in society, because of political correctness.
Because Political Correctness has undermined the force of social taboos that uphold society's norms that benefit society and its people, we have lost as a nation, and our culture's values have shifted from hard work and prosperity to entitlement and sloth.
Showing posts with label discrimination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label discrimination. Show all posts
Saturday, April 9, 2011
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!!
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!
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Free Speech, an Absolute?
I just heard a different slant on why the pastor in Florida is going to burn the Koran on September 11th. He thinks this will underwrite his Constitutional right to "free speech".
The radio commentator also said that he was to do this to show his right in the face of decency, tolerance, sensitivity to religious plurality, etc. He uses the same argument that is being used to defend the Mosque being built in NYC.
Recently, there has been a urgent outcry against such an action due to the probable "costs" of American lives. The value of "making a statement" or "taking a stand on freedom of speech" is at odds to the possible reactions of radical Muslims.
While I may not agree that this action is politically sensitive, which value is more important? And more patriotic? Is it the value of individual life, or the value of individual liberty? Freedom of speech, or fear of retribution? Freedom of individual expression, or political correctness? Some would believe that life is always of ultimate value, but then at what costs? Our military has been known to be upholding the value of liberty, as this is an ultimate American value.
Political correctness, means that someone has decided what another should "stand for", and what their expression is allowed to express. This is what has hindered scientific understanding in the past. The Church was at odds to what scientists discovered. Should we continue to discriminate against "free thinkers"?
(post-script) I do believe there are boundaries to liberty, and these must be weighed by a wider context of values....
The radio commentator also said that he was to do this to show his right in the face of decency, tolerance, sensitivity to religious plurality, etc. He uses the same argument that is being used to defend the Mosque being built in NYC.
Recently, there has been a urgent outcry against such an action due to the probable "costs" of American lives. The value of "making a statement" or "taking a stand on freedom of speech" is at odds to the possible reactions of radical Muslims.
While I may not agree that this action is politically sensitive, which value is more important? And more patriotic? Is it the value of individual life, or the value of individual liberty? Freedom of speech, or fear of retribution? Freedom of individual expression, or political correctness? Some would believe that life is always of ultimate value, but then at what costs? Our military has been known to be upholding the value of liberty, as this is an ultimate American value.
Political correctness, means that someone has decided what another should "stand for", and what their expression is allowed to express. This is what has hindered scientific understanding in the past. The Church was at odds to what scientists discovered. Should we continue to discriminate against "free thinkers"?
(post-script) I do believe there are boundaries to liberty, and these must be weighed by a wider context of values....
Monday, July 19, 2010
Challenging Social Conventions
Social conventions are considered to be the "norm". And norms are the values a certain society holds. This week-end, my husband and I saw two plays that challenged two values in our society; appearance, and conventional ideas.
"Fat Pig" was a humorous jab at our society's value of "being fit". Being overweight, Helen had had numerous encounters of being the brunt of society's "convention". She coped with the ostericism by learning to "make fun of herself", and to be bluntly forthright about another's thoughts about her "fatness".
Helen had not had a chance at love, as she had been rejected before anyone took the time to know the person behind the "facade", until she met "Ben". The play ended with the sacrifice of Helen, on the altars of society's conventional wisdom; one cannot succeed with a fat wife!
The other play, "The Trial of Barach Spinoza" was a true rendition of a Jewish philosopher, who challenged the conventional wisdom of Judiasm, as well as the status quo in a Dutch Reformed Amersterdam in the 1600's.
Spinoza was painted as a radically committed person who was willing to "die" for his faith. But, his faith was not one of conventional wisdom, and his death would not be a physical, but social one.
Society, as an entity itself, maintains its conventions with rules that guard and guide the "faithful". Society has much to loose if it conventions do not maintain their power, as society would end in chaos and be destroyed. The "gatekeepers" of tradition are those that help to maintain these conventions.
The individual, as a person, is lost within these systems, if these systems are too constrictive.
Helen's "rebuke" was not a trial, like Spinoza's, but it was nevertherless, a painful realization that she was to be an outcast to a life of being loved and valued, in her own right.
Spinoza's freethought threatened the status quo. And the choice for Spinoza was inevitably a painful realization that he would not be the "choir boy" within his "Jewish tradition". But, being the "choir boy" was never Spinoza's goal in the first place. Spinoza's friend, who betrayed him to the "authorities", was seeking to be a "choir boy", at least at first. Spinoza's intellectual honesty and commitment to be "true to himself" was the threat to society's traditional view.
One has to ask whether the values that society affirms are values that are truly "righteous"? Or are these conventional values "self affirming rights" to discriminate against another? And if one discriminates, then is there a conscious choice about the reasons why one discriminates?
People, for the most part, are not self-reflective enough to consider whether the value of a human being is to be put above social convention. Social convention is "an easy way out" of an uncomfortable challenge to one's social values.
I haven't come to my conclusions about all the why's or why not's, but I will be thinking about it this week.
"Fat Pig" was a humorous jab at our society's value of "being fit". Being overweight, Helen had had numerous encounters of being the brunt of society's "convention". She coped with the ostericism by learning to "make fun of herself", and to be bluntly forthright about another's thoughts about her "fatness".
Helen had not had a chance at love, as she had been rejected before anyone took the time to know the person behind the "facade", until she met "Ben". The play ended with the sacrifice of Helen, on the altars of society's conventional wisdom; one cannot succeed with a fat wife!
The other play, "The Trial of Barach Spinoza" was a true rendition of a Jewish philosopher, who challenged the conventional wisdom of Judiasm, as well as the status quo in a Dutch Reformed Amersterdam in the 1600's.
Spinoza was painted as a radically committed person who was willing to "die" for his faith. But, his faith was not one of conventional wisdom, and his death would not be a physical, but social one.
Society, as an entity itself, maintains its conventions with rules that guard and guide the "faithful". Society has much to loose if it conventions do not maintain their power, as society would end in chaos and be destroyed. The "gatekeepers" of tradition are those that help to maintain these conventions.
The individual, as a person, is lost within these systems, if these systems are too constrictive.
Helen's "rebuke" was not a trial, like Spinoza's, but it was nevertherless, a painful realization that she was to be an outcast to a life of being loved and valued, in her own right.
Spinoza's freethought threatened the status quo. And the choice for Spinoza was inevitably a painful realization that he would not be the "choir boy" within his "Jewish tradition". But, being the "choir boy" was never Spinoza's goal in the first place. Spinoza's friend, who betrayed him to the "authorities", was seeking to be a "choir boy", at least at first. Spinoza's intellectual honesty and commitment to be "true to himself" was the threat to society's traditional view.
One has to ask whether the values that society affirms are values that are truly "righteous"? Or are these conventional values "self affirming rights" to discriminate against another? And if one discriminates, then is there a conscious choice about the reasons why one discriminates?
People, for the most part, are not self-reflective enough to consider whether the value of a human being is to be put above social convention. Social convention is "an easy way out" of an uncomfortable challenge to one's social values.
I haven't come to my conclusions about all the why's or why not's, but I will be thinking about it this week.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
The "Scary Part" of Science
Natural science has been understood to be the "order" that establishes the universe. These "laws" are what physicists call "natural laws" that "rule" over what we know about the world. Today, science asks and is seeking the answer to "an order" that defines the universe. These 'laws" would be 'universal' and would underwrite the "world's structure".
Social scientists are also interested in what maintains the "social order". It has been thought that social structures themselves were what defined social norms and created the environment where humans flourished. These are family therapists, social psychologists, and social structuralists.
But, where the social sciences have defined "order" by the environment, these sciences are now trying to understand and integrate what biological science is finding to be true in the physical aspects of "being human". The brain is thought to carry the signature of the universe within its structure. This intersection of environment and biology has wrought much wrangling in its wake, as religion is being "outsourced" to the physical sciences.
But my concern is; so what if the brain reveals a "universal structure"? Does that necessitate a certain monistic understanding of "life", as far as environment? Are differences to be appreciated and affirmed or controlled and stipulated by "proper form" according to "brain science". This is where the "mind/brain" understanding comes into discussion and what makes for "the human", as far as I can understand. Without diversity of culture and personality, the world will be less colorful and enjoyable to the individual.
The individual will be defined by a "scientific society" that will form the rules that define tightly what is proper order. And this order will be defined by a certain culture, religion, race, and this "form" of thinking is what has led to genocide, ethnic cleansing, discrimination, and such. We must be aware of the social aspects of applications of science, so that science does not do disservice to mankind.
Order is what is created in societies by laws. But, order that is not flexible or accomodating to individuality is tyrannical. This is where science is limited, because "who can know another's mind" except one who has personal exposure and experience with another. Minds are different in this way.
Social scientists are also interested in what maintains the "social order". It has been thought that social structures themselves were what defined social norms and created the environment where humans flourished. These are family therapists, social psychologists, and social structuralists.
But, where the social sciences have defined "order" by the environment, these sciences are now trying to understand and integrate what biological science is finding to be true in the physical aspects of "being human". The brain is thought to carry the signature of the universe within its structure. This intersection of environment and biology has wrought much wrangling in its wake, as religion is being "outsourced" to the physical sciences.
But my concern is; so what if the brain reveals a "universal structure"? Does that necessitate a certain monistic understanding of "life", as far as environment? Are differences to be appreciated and affirmed or controlled and stipulated by "proper form" according to "brain science". This is where the "mind/brain" understanding comes into discussion and what makes for "the human", as far as I can understand. Without diversity of culture and personality, the world will be less colorful and enjoyable to the individual.
The individual will be defined by a "scientific society" that will form the rules that define tightly what is proper order. And this order will be defined by a certain culture, religion, race, and this "form" of thinking is what has led to genocide, ethnic cleansing, discrimination, and such. We must be aware of the social aspects of applications of science, so that science does not do disservice to mankind.
Order is what is created in societies by laws. But, order that is not flexible or accomodating to individuality is tyrannical. This is where science is limited, because "who can know another's mind" except one who has personal exposure and experience with another. Minds are different in this way.
Monday, February 22, 2010
The Necessity of Protecting Civil Liberty
Civil liberty was borne on the heels of oppression of a certain sex, or ethnicity. This is what has prompted civil rights and minority rights.
Although I believe in civil liberties, because free societies are what allow for differences, which is humane, I don't think that the best way to promote civil liberties is by creating a law to protect such a right. Laws define what society maintains as a 'standard" or a "norm". Norms, by definition, discriminate. But, norms also protect society from disruption and instability.
Humans have the right to be different in their convictions and values, because humans should be self-governing. The "self" is what monitors and maintains the individual's values structure. Society must allow for such "liberty", but, not at the costs of stability.
In our country, we have recourse for our grievances. We can petition, protest, and litigate. These rights protect the value of civil liberty which maintains a humane environment for human flourishing. Certainly, we do not want to sanction a STATE or RELIGIOUS mandated system where human values are pre-determined without allowing individuals the right to choose. Choice furthers human flourishing by enabling the individual to evaluate, discriminate and come to terms with their own personal value system.
Civil liberty is about protecting the right of individual choice and individual values.
Although I believe in civil liberties, because free societies are what allow for differences, which is humane, I don't think that the best way to promote civil liberties is by creating a law to protect such a right. Laws define what society maintains as a 'standard" or a "norm". Norms, by definition, discriminate. But, norms also protect society from disruption and instability.
Humans have the right to be different in their convictions and values, because humans should be self-governing. The "self" is what monitors and maintains the individual's values structure. Society must allow for such "liberty", but, not at the costs of stability.
In our country, we have recourse for our grievances. We can petition, protest, and litigate. These rights protect the value of civil liberty which maintains a humane environment for human flourishing. Certainly, we do not want to sanction a STATE or RELIGIOUS mandated system where human values are pre-determined without allowing individuals the right to choose. Choice furthers human flourishing by enabling the individual to evaluate, discriminate and come to terms with their own personal value system.
Civil liberty is about protecting the right of individual choice and individual values.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
A VERT GRAVE MISTAKE !
In last post, I made a grave mistake. I stated that government was never meant to give power, but to limit power.
In one sense, this is true, as it limits what one can do to another, but I also believe that limited government is what the Founders intended for our free society. Limited government doesn't give power by enabling bad behavior that disregards another's life. But, it does give power in the sense of enabling the individual to choose and determine his own destiny. That is the "ideal".
But, experience underlines the facts. And the facts are that all are not equal in opportunity. Some believe it is the government's job to rectify that "injustice'. This is what our country does in minority rights. But, as I have expressed before, minority rights can bring about reverse discrimination, the unintended consequence.
The world is filled with 'injustice" and I don't think that injustice will ever be resolved completely, because there are always two sides to any issue, if not more. We must do what we can or will to prepare for injustice. And this is why laws are in place, in the first place.
In one sense, this is true, as it limits what one can do to another, but I also believe that limited government is what the Founders intended for our free society. Limited government doesn't give power by enabling bad behavior that disregards another's life. But, it does give power in the sense of enabling the individual to choose and determine his own destiny. That is the "ideal".
But, experience underlines the facts. And the facts are that all are not equal in opportunity. Some believe it is the government's job to rectify that "injustice'. This is what our country does in minority rights. But, as I have expressed before, minority rights can bring about reverse discrimination, the unintended consequence.
The world is filled with 'injustice" and I don't think that injustice will ever be resolved completely, because there are always two sides to any issue, if not more. We must do what we can or will to prepare for injustice. And this is why laws are in place, in the first place.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Free Speech Is in Danger...
I have written about Gert Wilders, a Dutch politician that is outspoken against Islam. Today it was reported that he is being tried for "hate speech"!
What did he say? He said that the Koran was like "Mein Kampf" and that if he was to be tried, then they should bring the Turkish Muslim that killed the Dutch film maker to be tried, as well.
What was the "crime" of the film-maker? He was making a film on Islam using the testimony and life of a courgeous "freed" Muslim woman. He called the film "Submission". And she tried to get him to make the film using a pseudonym, which he did not do. Should we be driven by fear, when it comes to making a documentary, telling the truth of a life?
Is this crazy or what? Is there 'One Special" and Priviledged religion nowadays? The U.N. has granted special rights over and above the Declaration of Human Rights. Islam should not be granted the right to kill someone for any reason. Killing should trump "religious freedom".
It seems we have things backwards today. We become so afraid of discrimination, that we inadvertly discriminate. And why? How can we un-do what has been done in the past? We can only promote more justice in the future by social norms, not legislation. The problem, is that many in the West do not hold religion as seriously as those in the East. And that is something that is taken seriously by political/religious ideologies. Just look at the Christian Church during its "reign of power".
Power corrupts, so there should be no priviledged race, religion, or sex. And we cannot protect from discrimination by "quotas".
What did he say? He said that the Koran was like "Mein Kampf" and that if he was to be tried, then they should bring the Turkish Muslim that killed the Dutch film maker to be tried, as well.
What was the "crime" of the film-maker? He was making a film on Islam using the testimony and life of a courgeous "freed" Muslim woman. He called the film "Submission". And she tried to get him to make the film using a pseudonym, which he did not do. Should we be driven by fear, when it comes to making a documentary, telling the truth of a life?
Is this crazy or what? Is there 'One Special" and Priviledged religion nowadays? The U.N. has granted special rights over and above the Declaration of Human Rights. Islam should not be granted the right to kill someone for any reason. Killing should trump "religious freedom".
It seems we have things backwards today. We become so afraid of discrimination, that we inadvertly discriminate. And why? How can we un-do what has been done in the past? We can only promote more justice in the future by social norms, not legislation. The problem, is that many in the West do not hold religion as seriously as those in the East. And that is something that is taken seriously by political/religious ideologies. Just look at the Christian Church during its "reign of power".
Power corrupts, so there should be no priviledged race, religion, or sex. And we cannot protect from discrimination by "quotas".
Monday, November 23, 2009
The Discrimination of Cinderella
A few months ago, I wrote about Cinderella. Cinderella's story is a classic story of discrimination.
Cinderella not only had natural right but a civil right to be a part of her step-family, but was excluded and given the common duties of a maid.
When the time came for the King's ball, she felt sure that this time would include her as an equal. And her expectation and hope and work to ready herself was met with disapproval by her step-sisters and step-mother. Her legal family had not given her legal rights!
Fortunately, for Americans, we are granted rights under law, that protect us from discrimination. Those that seek to upsurp another's right to be an equal are doomed to be convicted of discrimination. Cinderella had no civil rights, so she had to resort to depending on a "fairy godmother". Hers was an unfortunate state of affairs.
But, as Disney's fairy tales all end with 'happily ever afters", Cinderella ends us gaining not just her legal and moral rights, but also the whole kingdom. She becomes the Prince's bride and all ends justly.
This is similar to what Christians believe. They believe that the supernatural will intervene to make things right or just. And if not in this life, then justice will be measured out in the after-life. This is not rational. And our Founders knew that without civil liberties, then one would be doomed to live their life in servitude, as they had under Britian with the "tea tax".
Civil rights were to protect natural rights because government should not 'take life" in any way, shape or form. We are a People, because of our consent to be governed in liberty under civil law.
Cinderella not only had natural right but a civil right to be a part of her step-family, but was excluded and given the common duties of a maid.
When the time came for the King's ball, she felt sure that this time would include her as an equal. And her expectation and hope and work to ready herself was met with disapproval by her step-sisters and step-mother. Her legal family had not given her legal rights!
Fortunately, for Americans, we are granted rights under law, that protect us from discrimination. Those that seek to upsurp another's right to be an equal are doomed to be convicted of discrimination. Cinderella had no civil rights, so she had to resort to depending on a "fairy godmother". Hers was an unfortunate state of affairs.
But, as Disney's fairy tales all end with 'happily ever afters", Cinderella ends us gaining not just her legal and moral rights, but also the whole kingdom. She becomes the Prince's bride and all ends justly.
This is similar to what Christians believe. They believe that the supernatural will intervene to make things right or just. And if not in this life, then justice will be measured out in the after-life. This is not rational. And our Founders knew that without civil liberties, then one would be doomed to live their life in servitude, as they had under Britian with the "tea tax".
Civil rights were to protect natural rights because government should not 'take life" in any way, shape or form. We are a People, because of our consent to be governed in liberty under civil law.
Discrimination About Discrimination
Civil rights has a turbulant history in American culture. And we are still "fighting for civil rights". But, has civil rights outweighed the value of society's value of "the common good" because of its overemphasis?
Minority rights "won the day" when minoritiesad the right to be represented through "quotas". Quotas brings hand-wringing to some camps that discriminate by "nature". That is, they discriminate to define themselves apart from the larger context of society. Such is the case with a conservative school and homosexual teachers.
Minority rights has been accepted as a "standard" of fairness. And minority rights are protected by civil liberties. But, are civil liberties just as keen on protecting a "creationist educator"? I believe so. But, the cultural climate is not conducive, these days, for diversity, as just as in quotas, there is a conscious effort to value the "politically correct".
I think that our society has really baffled others, as we have no culture that supports a generalized view of life, as we believe in individual liberties and cultural diversity. This is all welll and good, until the culture becomes so diverse that there is no consensus of any kind to appeal to rationality. This is what America faces in its "culture wars".
Is everyone going to get represented equally? Or will those who have 'politically incorrect" views going to be discriminated against, because the power of the government has the force to "keep them in line"? Is government "protecting us" from information "for our own good"?
Conservative churches are afriad that they will have to pledge allegience to the "cultural ideal" of diversity, at the expense of dissolving the values of the churches populace. Atheists are "drooling at the mouth" over such unfortunate situations, as they might want to make a case against religious freedom on the basis of "discrimination". Our Founders would be appalled!
Each religious group has just as much right to survive in the "cultural wars" as a minority. But, minoirity rights are politically correct because these vote in the next election. Conservative organizational structures do not vote and the individuals in such organizations probably wouldn't vote for a "plural view" of society in the first place. So, politically, the conservative organization is marginalized or useful only to promote agendas that "appear to be fair", while "hoodwinking those in its bow".
The only solution to the cultural wars is the libertarian position. Individuals taking responsibility for their own lives, without govenment interference. This way there are no 'priviledged positions" that give one a 'right over another", and there are no priviledged "people" because of a 'right" made to bring retribution. And government would have to listen to those whose liberties are bing plundered. Government would finally be held accountable to the people, and not the people to the government.
Our country has changed in regards to entitlement. No one deserves anything other than proper respect and dignity, as a human being and being treated equally under law as a citizen. But, nowadays, young people are able to take time out from school and dont' have to hold down a job while in school ,because parents are wealthy enough to "make it easy". Some of these young people grow up to expect the world to "stand at attention" for them and when it doesn't, "Mama can't do anything about it".
My grandfather and those in his generation grew up understanding that life was about working to make a living, being responsible to their government in serving their country and acting respectfully to authority. Today, this is not the case and society suffers because of it.
The 50's brought America prosperity that spoiled us, but allowed us the freedom to innovate, as we were also wealthy enough to not worry if we didn't make the money right away. There was enough to put "food on the table". Today, we are back to square one, working feverishly to "make a living".
I heard that some believe this economic crisis is good for families, as it demands that they spend more time eating together around the table and playing games at home. Though these "images" bring 'warmth to our hearts", these images are not of everyone's family. Financial concerns are the number one culprit of marital discord. And some who face financial crisis will have to get a second job, instead of eating around the table with their children, these will be more tired and more absent from their families, even when they are at home.
Prosperity is not the enemy, though Marxist ideologues would like to sell us that "bill of goods". Prosperity is a sign of hard work, innovation, wise decision making, investment, responsibility, and self-governance. The problem with today's prosperity is that too many Americans bought too much too soon and got in debt over their heads. And those in the financial fields got greedy of gaining on their investments at too high an interest rate. It is always easy to play with other people's money and livlihoods.
So discrimination is not just about race, but also about choice, value, and lifestyle. No one can make right decisons for you, as individuals must make that choice for themselves for it to have any moral value. Americans have not been used to moral dilemmas, or ethical evaluations for the most part.
And not remembering the mistakes of the past, ensures that we will experience the results of those mistakes again.
Minority rights "won the day" when minoritiesad the right to be represented through "quotas". Quotas brings hand-wringing to some camps that discriminate by "nature". That is, they discriminate to define themselves apart from the larger context of society. Such is the case with a conservative school and homosexual teachers.
Minority rights has been accepted as a "standard" of fairness. And minority rights are protected by civil liberties. But, are civil liberties just as keen on protecting a "creationist educator"? I believe so. But, the cultural climate is not conducive, these days, for diversity, as just as in quotas, there is a conscious effort to value the "politically correct".
I think that our society has really baffled others, as we have no culture that supports a generalized view of life, as we believe in individual liberties and cultural diversity. This is all welll and good, until the culture becomes so diverse that there is no consensus of any kind to appeal to rationality. This is what America faces in its "culture wars".
Is everyone going to get represented equally? Or will those who have 'politically incorrect" views going to be discriminated against, because the power of the government has the force to "keep them in line"? Is government "protecting us" from information "for our own good"?
Conservative churches are afriad that they will have to pledge allegience to the "cultural ideal" of diversity, at the expense of dissolving the values of the churches populace. Atheists are "drooling at the mouth" over such unfortunate situations, as they might want to make a case against religious freedom on the basis of "discrimination". Our Founders would be appalled!
Each religious group has just as much right to survive in the "cultural wars" as a minority. But, minoirity rights are politically correct because these vote in the next election. Conservative organizational structures do not vote and the individuals in such organizations probably wouldn't vote for a "plural view" of society in the first place. So, politically, the conservative organization is marginalized or useful only to promote agendas that "appear to be fair", while "hoodwinking those in its bow".
The only solution to the cultural wars is the libertarian position. Individuals taking responsibility for their own lives, without govenment interference. This way there are no 'priviledged positions" that give one a 'right over another", and there are no priviledged "people" because of a 'right" made to bring retribution. And government would have to listen to those whose liberties are bing plundered. Government would finally be held accountable to the people, and not the people to the government.
Our country has changed in regards to entitlement. No one deserves anything other than proper respect and dignity, as a human being and being treated equally under law as a citizen. But, nowadays, young people are able to take time out from school and dont' have to hold down a job while in school ,because parents are wealthy enough to "make it easy". Some of these young people grow up to expect the world to "stand at attention" for them and when it doesn't, "Mama can't do anything about it".
My grandfather and those in his generation grew up understanding that life was about working to make a living, being responsible to their government in serving their country and acting respectfully to authority. Today, this is not the case and society suffers because of it.
The 50's brought America prosperity that spoiled us, but allowed us the freedom to innovate, as we were also wealthy enough to not worry if we didn't make the money right away. There was enough to put "food on the table". Today, we are back to square one, working feverishly to "make a living".
I heard that some believe this economic crisis is good for families, as it demands that they spend more time eating together around the table and playing games at home. Though these "images" bring 'warmth to our hearts", these images are not of everyone's family. Financial concerns are the number one culprit of marital discord. And some who face financial crisis will have to get a second job, instead of eating around the table with their children, these will be more tired and more absent from their families, even when they are at home.
Prosperity is not the enemy, though Marxist ideologues would like to sell us that "bill of goods". Prosperity is a sign of hard work, innovation, wise decision making, investment, responsibility, and self-governance. The problem with today's prosperity is that too many Americans bought too much too soon and got in debt over their heads. And those in the financial fields got greedy of gaining on their investments at too high an interest rate. It is always easy to play with other people's money and livlihoods.
So discrimination is not just about race, but also about choice, value, and lifestyle. No one can make right decisons for you, as individuals must make that choice for themselves for it to have any moral value. Americans have not been used to moral dilemmas, or ethical evaluations for the most part.
And not remembering the mistakes of the past, ensures that we will experience the results of those mistakes again.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Which Way?
I have been fascinated by American Creation's blog site. They have been discussing many issues concerning our Founding as a nation.
Which way is best to understand our present reality? Realism , Critical Realsim, or Instrucmentalism?
Realism makes absolute and universal claims about what humans know, understand and value (or should value). Realism says that we perceive everything the same way. It is a correspondence view of Truth. History happened in the real world. Scientific facts are facts.
Instrumentalism understands "what works", is more pragmatic in its assessment, as it is focused on "outcome". Instrumentalism is a kind of "social contruction" about reality. The real is what leaders say is real. History is interpreted by these to assure outcomes.
Critical realism says that although reality is "out there", we cannot know it absolutely. We only know "in part", as we are within certain contexts of history, societial, and personal. This being the case, the critical realists must evaluate what he chooses to value as "ultimate". These are the "ideals" that our Founding Fathers viewed as "most important".
The Quadralateral affirms different ways of "being in the world". Some understand through reason and make their evaluations about life based on reason's assessment. But, reason is still interpreted within contexts of one's experience or expertise. We cannot get away from various contexts.
Though tradition and scripture are the interpretive lens of understanding culture, these are not absolute, either. So, those in leadership must strategize, using their reason, about what outcome is to be valued and work to formulate how policy helps to form that outcome.
The outcome today is multicultural, and global. The multiculturalists values reason within contexts, while the critical realists understands that everyone's culture, cannot be the one and only outcome, as we must choose what is of ultimate importance.
We need critical realists that will defend Western civilization from its demise.
This morning it was reported that Germany is at odds with America over a NATO attack that killed Afghan citizens. Globalism creates division where it concerns the West's interest, because the West has bought into the multicultural "worldview where the West is dismissed on the basis of "imperialism", or "colonialism". The multiculturalists tries to rectify injustice through minority rights. And the unintended consequences is reverse discrimination.
Last night, on TV it was reported how the multiculturalists are re-writing our history, and labelling the heroes of our past with derogatory names, undermining thier work in building our culture of freedom and justice.
I think that we are headed for rough waters unless reason holds sway above multiculturalism. Multiculturalism will lead us toward communism, which undermines individual liberties. And individual liberties are only won under accountable and responsible leadership, who inform the public of the outcome, instead of "winning" through sleight of hand.
Which way is best to understand our present reality? Realism , Critical Realsim, or Instrucmentalism?
Realism makes absolute and universal claims about what humans know, understand and value (or should value). Realism says that we perceive everything the same way. It is a correspondence view of Truth. History happened in the real world. Scientific facts are facts.
Instrumentalism understands "what works", is more pragmatic in its assessment, as it is focused on "outcome". Instrumentalism is a kind of "social contruction" about reality. The real is what leaders say is real. History is interpreted by these to assure outcomes.
Critical realism says that although reality is "out there", we cannot know it absolutely. We only know "in part", as we are within certain contexts of history, societial, and personal. This being the case, the critical realists must evaluate what he chooses to value as "ultimate". These are the "ideals" that our Founding Fathers viewed as "most important".
The Quadralateral affirms different ways of "being in the world". Some understand through reason and make their evaluations about life based on reason's assessment. But, reason is still interpreted within contexts of one's experience or expertise. We cannot get away from various contexts.
Though tradition and scripture are the interpretive lens of understanding culture, these are not absolute, either. So, those in leadership must strategize, using their reason, about what outcome is to be valued and work to formulate how policy helps to form that outcome.
The outcome today is multicultural, and global. The multiculturalists values reason within contexts, while the critical realists understands that everyone's culture, cannot be the one and only outcome, as we must choose what is of ultimate importance.
We need critical realists that will defend Western civilization from its demise.
This morning it was reported that Germany is at odds with America over a NATO attack that killed Afghan citizens. Globalism creates division where it concerns the West's interest, because the West has bought into the multicultural "worldview where the West is dismissed on the basis of "imperialism", or "colonialism". The multiculturalists tries to rectify injustice through minority rights. And the unintended consequences is reverse discrimination.
Last night, on TV it was reported how the multiculturalists are re-writing our history, and labelling the heroes of our past with derogatory names, undermining thier work in building our culture of freedom and justice.
I think that we are headed for rough waters unless reason holds sway above multiculturalism. Multiculturalism will lead us toward communism, which undermines individual liberties. And individual liberties are only won under accountable and responsible leadership, who inform the public of the outcome, instead of "winning" through sleight of hand.
Monday, July 27, 2009
"Specialialness" and Divine Revelation
All fundamentalists and many evangelicas believe that they have "special revelation". These believe that Scripture reveals "God's plan" and "God's way". These people remain within the "system" of biblical revelation to "defend" their positions. They, for the most part, fear other areas of knowledge, because "special revelation" has to be "above" average, everyday knowledge. Their reading of Scripture and "revelations" are sanctioned due to their belief in the Holy Spirit. No one can convince these believers otherwise, as they have "an in-road to God".
There is something highly wrong and dangerous with such a view. While the Church has maintained it's narrative of Jesus, Christ and Church, those that adhere to this narrative must also submit to Church authority.
Church authority nor is any authority immune to "use" their sense of "entitlement" to further their own agenda and goals. And this is why no organization or people should be above our nation's laws.
Special priviledge is not the "American Way", no matter what Scripture may deem "right"! Slavery was outlawed and patronage is dubious when it comes to our American ideals, as all are equal under the law.
There is something highly wrong and dangerous with such a view. While the Church has maintained it's narrative of Jesus, Christ and Church, those that adhere to this narrative must also submit to Church authority.
Church authority nor is any authority immune to "use" their sense of "entitlement" to further their own agenda and goals. And this is why no organization or people should be above our nation's laws.
Special priviledge is not the "American Way", no matter what Scripture may deem "right"! Slavery was outlawed and patronage is dubious when it comes to our American ideals, as all are equal under the law.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Art, Form, and Expression
Art in the free world is a personal, as well as a cultural "expression". One's view of life and value is represented by these forms of expression, whether these expressions are in the printed press about politics, or whether these expressions are "artistic" ways of expressing other "forms" of "life". The West values the freedom of expression and so, we do not confine or undermine free expression. But, there are other countries that do.
Just this morning while going throught the massive piles of last week's newpapers, I read where China is now limiting Facebook and Twitter. There is much regulation is such countries because of their need to control the population's information that might undermine "elite power".
Such is also the case in Islamic countries where women are covered from head to toe. The free expression of "fashion" is not to be desired, affirmed, valued or allowed. "Allah" is a "black and white" God. Color, whether literal or metaphorical, is not appreciated in such cultures.
Even though conservative Islamic woman have no choice in their public image, I found many Islamic women going throught the history of fashion exhibition at the Victoria and Albert museum in London. I wondered why they were interested. Was art and its value a human universal, even when it is suppressed? The "universal" categories of "black and white" were more in line with "conservatism", than a particular religious tradition.
As I was looking and pondering over these thoughts, I came across two English women, who were viewing the case before them. One made a rather disintergrating and distainful remark about the "American designer sweatsuit" in the case. As she and her friend were obviously interested in "designer clothes", there was no value judgment made against expensive items. So, I wondered why the value judgment was made against this particular item of clothing.
The statement seemed to be dismissing as extravagant an expensive sweatsuit, while making allowance for much more expensive items of clothing. Was this value judgment based on a "traditional" understanding of aristocratic dressing, for an occassion? The value of aristocracy and its "image" is important to European identity, while Americans are practical and value using thier money where it is most useful, which is an individually determined definition. Sweatsuits are probably worn more than an evening gown, for instance. So, some Americans might find value in spending their money on an expensive sweatsuit, than an expensive gown.
America is known for individualism, informality, practicality, pragmatism, and liberty. I wonder if other countries look at our "success" as innovators, and our economic liberties as something that is envied and resented. America has represented many things to many people, because of our freedoms. Our freedoms are unique in this world. And I think rulers in other countries envy our "power" over the "ideals" of thier people.
I think being equal under law in a representative government is the best "ideal" there is in this world. Americans should value, defend and maintain this "form" rather than bickering about other "forms" of expression and being in this world.
Just this morning while going throught the massive piles of last week's newpapers, I read where China is now limiting Facebook and Twitter. There is much regulation is such countries because of their need to control the population's information that might undermine "elite power".
Such is also the case in Islamic countries where women are covered from head to toe. The free expression of "fashion" is not to be desired, affirmed, valued or allowed. "Allah" is a "black and white" God. Color, whether literal or metaphorical, is not appreciated in such cultures.
Even though conservative Islamic woman have no choice in their public image, I found many Islamic women going throught the history of fashion exhibition at the Victoria and Albert museum in London. I wondered why they were interested. Was art and its value a human universal, even when it is suppressed? The "universal" categories of "black and white" were more in line with "conservatism", than a particular religious tradition.
As I was looking and pondering over these thoughts, I came across two English women, who were viewing the case before them. One made a rather disintergrating and distainful remark about the "American designer sweatsuit" in the case. As she and her friend were obviously interested in "designer clothes", there was no value judgment made against expensive items. So, I wondered why the value judgment was made against this particular item of clothing.
The statement seemed to be dismissing as extravagant an expensive sweatsuit, while making allowance for much more expensive items of clothing. Was this value judgment based on a "traditional" understanding of aristocratic dressing, for an occassion? The value of aristocracy and its "image" is important to European identity, while Americans are practical and value using thier money where it is most useful, which is an individually determined definition. Sweatsuits are probably worn more than an evening gown, for instance. So, some Americans might find value in spending their money on an expensive sweatsuit, than an expensive gown.
America is known for individualism, informality, practicality, pragmatism, and liberty. I wonder if other countries look at our "success" as innovators, and our economic liberties as something that is envied and resented. America has represented many things to many people, because of our freedoms. Our freedoms are unique in this world. And I think rulers in other countries envy our "power" over the "ideals" of thier people.
I think being equal under law in a representative government is the best "ideal" there is in this world. Americans should value, defend and maintain this "form" rather than bickering about other "forms" of expression and being in this world.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Justified to Dis-criminate
The religious seem to justify discrimination. As we all discriminate, because we must make judgments, what is wrong about discriminating amongst religious traditions? Because traditions all seek to understand God within their cultural reference points, we differ as to how we understand reality, God and humans. While humans seek to understand God, as the majority of humans are religious, we should not use God to discriminate.
Discrimination can be along doctrinal lines, where one must adhere to certain beliefs that are and have been traditionally held. These discriminations are the heresy trials, and witch hunts of our country's early Founding. These are understanding of what formulate the creeds. This is the "standards" of belief systems.
Discrimination can also be because one doesn't interpret a text in the right way. Infants must be baptized,; communion must be taken; children must be circumcised; one must cross their hands wile praying; these all are emphasis of undestanding tradition's texts and a reverance for God. What the sacraments mean vary according to the speicific religion and sect.
Some adhere to a wholesale theological framework, in which all of life is understood. These traditions are static and specified in such detail that if one deters from what is orthodox, one has erred and is labelled an infidel.
Discrimination is justified, becasue it affirms our own way of being and undestanding the world. We love to use God for our own purposes. God gives us a sense of power and control; a sense of purpose and a value. Our egos need God's sanction, so we form our "ingroups and our outgroups' based on these understandings and factors.
I truly understand the need to belong. It is one of the most basic of human needs. Humans need support, encouragment and companionship. Of course, some need these blessings more than others.
Justifying our belief systems and our standards of behavior is a rational activity. There is nothing wrong about this either, as all human do this consciously or unconscously. But, when we use our rational resources to maintain an 'in group" at the costs of another, we have stepped past the line for common decency and civil discourse. In our society, discrimination is about belonging to the civil discourse, and there is no justification for discrimination.
Discrimination can be along doctrinal lines, where one must adhere to certain beliefs that are and have been traditionally held. These discriminations are the heresy trials, and witch hunts of our country's early Founding. These are understanding of what formulate the creeds. This is the "standards" of belief systems.
Discrimination can also be because one doesn't interpret a text in the right way. Infants must be baptized,; communion must be taken; children must be circumcised; one must cross their hands wile praying; these all are emphasis of undestanding tradition's texts and a reverance for God. What the sacraments mean vary according to the speicific religion and sect.
Some adhere to a wholesale theological framework, in which all of life is understood. These traditions are static and specified in such detail that if one deters from what is orthodox, one has erred and is labelled an infidel.
Discrimination is justified, becasue it affirms our own way of being and undestanding the world. We love to use God for our own purposes. God gives us a sense of power and control; a sense of purpose and a value. Our egos need God's sanction, so we form our "ingroups and our outgroups' based on these understandings and factors.
I truly understand the need to belong. It is one of the most basic of human needs. Humans need support, encouragment and companionship. Of course, some need these blessings more than others.
Justifying our belief systems and our standards of behavior is a rational activity. There is nothing wrong about this either, as all human do this consciously or unconscously. But, when we use our rational resources to maintain an 'in group" at the costs of another, we have stepped past the line for common decency and civil discourse. In our society, discrimination is about belonging to the civil discourse, and there is no justification for discrimination.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
History, Power and Minorities
There has been much discussion in some segments of society about history and who is "right" about history. What really happened and what was the ideology that drove the transcribers of history. On one of the blogs I follow American Creation, there has been discussion on our Founding Fathers and the issue of whether they were Christians, and whether America is a Christian nation. On other sites there is discussion about Christian tradition and how we do not have all the information needed to make assertions about the development of Christianity.
Much has to do with those in power, the power structures, and the interests of those who "told the story". Our perceptions do influence how we understand and come to our conclusions. And our perceptions are influenced by our personal and cultural histories.
Christianity was a theologizing of history, so that the minority voice would be heard. In our democratic and free society, we have the right to speak and the right to be heard, as this was the Founding Fathers concern. Minority voices and minority rights have become a backhanded prejuidice against the majority, as these rights are legislated by government in "Affirmative Action" and are enforced by quotas. These stipulations, while attempting to 'correct' a wrong, does wrong, which is what happens whenever there is moralizing, universalizing, or expanding government influence "making amends" for wrongs. It becomes a monster to those it should be kind toward, because it discrimnates inadvertedly and makes demands of time to regulate "itself" in paperwork. Beauracracies are expensive and cumbersome, as well as hard to hold accountable. This is one of the primary reasons our Founding Fathers wanted a limited government.
Just the other day, I was talking to a young couple that were overwhelmed by the government's discrimination! They have made too much money to get help, as they have health issues, and a job loss. Yet, those who have never worked, had children they don't want and live parasitely off of government coffers are given "food stamps", WIC to help with their children and untold other programs of support, while these that are more than deserving don't get anything and yet, have paid taxes and supported the government's interest in being good citizens. What is the answer to these public questions, which affect all of us?
Limited government is a government that does not overspend, gives the individual room and right to pursue their own interests without too much government interference, and allows the market to drive profits. Free societies allow freedom in many dimensions, which brings opportunities, as well as limitations.
I find whenever there is a socialistic "concern", there is moral disintergration, as people need incentive to do and to be for themselves and their families. Others should also be held accountable for taking care of their families. And when the family has disintergrated, then the Church should take the lead in "adopting" those that have no support or help in obtaining opportunity.
Much has to do with those in power, the power structures, and the interests of those who "told the story". Our perceptions do influence how we understand and come to our conclusions. And our perceptions are influenced by our personal and cultural histories.
Christianity was a theologizing of history, so that the minority voice would be heard. In our democratic and free society, we have the right to speak and the right to be heard, as this was the Founding Fathers concern. Minority voices and minority rights have become a backhanded prejuidice against the majority, as these rights are legislated by government in "Affirmative Action" and are enforced by quotas. These stipulations, while attempting to 'correct' a wrong, does wrong, which is what happens whenever there is moralizing, universalizing, or expanding government influence "making amends" for wrongs. It becomes a monster to those it should be kind toward, because it discrimnates inadvertedly and makes demands of time to regulate "itself" in paperwork. Beauracracies are expensive and cumbersome, as well as hard to hold accountable. This is one of the primary reasons our Founding Fathers wanted a limited government.
Just the other day, I was talking to a young couple that were overwhelmed by the government's discrimination! They have made too much money to get help, as they have health issues, and a job loss. Yet, those who have never worked, had children they don't want and live parasitely off of government coffers are given "food stamps", WIC to help with their children and untold other programs of support, while these that are more than deserving don't get anything and yet, have paid taxes and supported the government's interest in being good citizens. What is the answer to these public questions, which affect all of us?
Limited government is a government that does not overspend, gives the individual room and right to pursue their own interests without too much government interference, and allows the market to drive profits. Free societies allow freedom in many dimensions, which brings opportunities, as well as limitations.
I find whenever there is a socialistic "concern", there is moral disintergration, as people need incentive to do and to be for themselves and their families. Others should also be held accountable for taking care of their families. And when the family has disintergrated, then the Church should take the lead in "adopting" those that have no support or help in obtaining opportunity.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Religious Identity Re-identified
"There is no Jew or Greek" is something that American society affirms, as we are a "melting pot" of many nations. We are what a "moral vision" consists, where a "new humanity" has become a nation-state. Religious identity is tied up with certain "stories" and texts, which hinder a full embrace and hospitable temper toward difference, diversity and freedom.
"There is no Jew or Gentile" meaning that there is no favoritism that all are equal before the Law. Neopotism is forbidden in business dealings. We are a people, a free and representative Republic that holds that "all mean are created equal" with "certain inalienable rights". We hold to a higher view of man than religious traditions do. We are humanists because we hold that all individuals deserve an equal respect and dignity that is protected by government. No slavery allowed, nor special priviledge or "special insightful revelation". No, we are all created equal.
Religions do not believe that all are equal, as there are priests, witch doctors, Popes, teachers, and prophets. Although there are different functions or roles in organizations or job duties, we, the people understand our interedependece, whether through the demands of unions, or minority rights. America seeks to protect those who are less fortunate, while gifting those with special gifts with the freedom to do, and become all that they can become.
America believes that all men and women are deserving of freedom and justice. We do not discriminate on any basis. It is the law. We must give equal opportunity, as that is the law. And we are respecters of law, and not men (or women)!
"There is no Jew or Gentile" meaning that there is no favoritism that all are equal before the Law. Neopotism is forbidden in business dealings. We are a people, a free and representative Republic that holds that "all mean are created equal" with "certain inalienable rights". We hold to a higher view of man than religious traditions do. We are humanists because we hold that all individuals deserve an equal respect and dignity that is protected by government. No slavery allowed, nor special priviledge or "special insightful revelation". No, we are all created equal.
Religions do not believe that all are equal, as there are priests, witch doctors, Popes, teachers, and prophets. Although there are different functions or roles in organizations or job duties, we, the people understand our interedependece, whether through the demands of unions, or minority rights. America seeks to protect those who are less fortunate, while gifting those with special gifts with the freedom to do, and become all that they can become.
America believes that all men and women are deserving of freedom and justice. We do not discriminate on any basis. It is the law. We must give equal opportunity, as that is the law. And we are respecters of law, and not men (or women)!
Monday, March 9, 2009
Discrimination,Morality, Banking, and Business
The news reported this morning that a Muslim owned bank in Michigan would
do business according to "shairhia law'. The concern was over the "trojan horses" attached to this banking business in their lending practices. The question is one of discrimination, morality and law and it concerns our Constitution, and form of government, as well as our experience of life.
Does a business have a "religious right" to "freedom"? We have legislated that religious institutions are free from taxation, as we believe in the separation of Church and State. But, do the politically-motivated religious have a right to "do business" with "strings attached"? Can a Muslim business use "shairh'ia" law to discriminate about the use of the money loaned? In other words, can these religious/political banks limit the use of the money and determine so, by "shairh'ia" arbitrators?
My husband doesn't think that our country would allow the discrimination under shairh'ia, but many have been concerned about the religious freedom of Christians. Now, it seems, that if religious freedom is allowed for the Christian, then there should be no discrimination toward Islam, either. But, at what costs? Islam is a politicized religion. Their religion does no allow for freedom of conscience. This is troubling, as our whole understanding and system of government was formed around "a freedom of conscience". How can we, as a nation, tolerate the intolerant?
I'm sure lawyers, civil libertarians, and political philosophers have been hard at work in thinking through these complex issues. At what point does business intrude into another's political "conscience". Today's need is not one of religious freedom so much as political freedom. Without political freedom, there is no religious freedom, no matter what a theologian says!
do business according to "shairhia law'. The concern was over the "trojan horses" attached to this banking business in their lending practices. The question is one of discrimination, morality and law and it concerns our Constitution, and form of government, as well as our experience of life.
Does a business have a "religious right" to "freedom"? We have legislated that religious institutions are free from taxation, as we believe in the separation of Church and State. But, do the politically-motivated religious have a right to "do business" with "strings attached"? Can a Muslim business use "shairh'ia" law to discriminate about the use of the money loaned? In other words, can these religious/political banks limit the use of the money and determine so, by "shairh'ia" arbitrators?
My husband doesn't think that our country would allow the discrimination under shairh'ia, but many have been concerned about the religious freedom of Christians. Now, it seems, that if religious freedom is allowed for the Christian, then there should be no discrimination toward Islam, either. But, at what costs? Islam is a politicized religion. Their religion does no allow for freedom of conscience. This is troubling, as our whole understanding and system of government was formed around "a freedom of conscience". How can we, as a nation, tolerate the intolerant?
I'm sure lawyers, civil libertarians, and political philosophers have been hard at work in thinking through these complex issues. At what point does business intrude into another's political "conscience". Today's need is not one of religious freedom so much as political freedom. Without political freedom, there is no religious freedom, no matter what a theologian says!
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
I'd Rather Be...
I'd rather be an American today, than anything on earth. America's "ideals" are going to be demonstrated before the world, in Obama's inaugeration.
His inaugeration stands for all the "ideals" I value most, equality, opportunity, hope, and freedom. Mine is not the only heart that is moved by these "ideals". These ideals are what humans are about because humans are made to be free, to experience justice, and to have the hope of opportunity and the freedom of equality....No wonder someone on NPR said the other day that America represents a higher moral order than any other nation!
I'd rather be an American today than be a part of any other country or religion, because America does not discriminate based upon the specificities of one's race or religion. That is what I want to be and be like, because only leaders who represent these values are ones that should be followed!
His inaugeration stands for all the "ideals" I value most, equality, opportunity, hope, and freedom. Mine is not the only heart that is moved by these "ideals". These ideals are what humans are about because humans are made to be free, to experience justice, and to have the hope of opportunity and the freedom of equality....No wonder someone on NPR said the other day that America represents a higher moral order than any other nation!
I'd rather be an American today than be a part of any other country or religion, because America does not discriminate based upon the specificities of one's race or religion. That is what I want to be and be like, because only leaders who represent these values are ones that should be followed!
Thursday, November 6, 2008
The Church and Discrimination
Historically, the traditional Church becomes discriminatory. Discrimination among Christians is based on many authorities. These authorities are limiting factors in understanding the universal principles of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Many Christians would say that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" were misguided goals of an individual's life. I would like to take them one by one and discuss what I believe is the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.
Life. Life is a human universal. Without life, we can not pursue any other opportunity. Life is experienced by the individual. Therefore, individual life must be protected, first and foremost. But, how is life defined? Life can be defined by it's physicality, as well as it's "abundance". If life is limited to the physical aspects, without supporting its abundance, life seems futile. The futility of life is found when man ceases to have "rewards" for his labor, or hope for his goals. While life's rewards and goals are aspects of a flourishing life, life cannot be realized apart from proper government that recognizes the individual's right to pursue his own ends.
Liberty. Government, such as we have in America, encourages engagement and recognizes everyone's right to pursue life's abundance as they deem fit, within the boundaries of law. This is how liberty is defined. But, traditional Christians do not support an individual's right to pursue his own ends, as Christians define life as a commitment to the "cause of the Kingdom of God" (how is the Kingdom defined?), or as a self abenagtion of life, itself. Life cannot be enjoyed for its own sake. It must have a purpose (or function of the church?)! Liberty is not the message of traditional Christian faith, as it is always about God's will and not the individual's will.
Happiness. As Christian faith is about "loving God first", Christians do not affirm seeking "happiness". Happiness is based on circumstances in the material realm, which undermines "faith" in a trascendent reality. The transcendent reality is more important than the real world and life of the individual. Acesticism has been understood as a form of "sanctification" by some, just as it did in Judiasm and other religious faiths. Ascesticism does not affirm the life of the material, but the spiritual. In fact, asceticism denies affirming life's "here and now".
Christian faith has been defined by tradition's doctrine, by Scriptural texts, and by Church authorities, but has never affirmed tolerance of individual difference. This is the reason why so many churches split over how they understand their faith and its commitments. This has happened historically and is still occurring. Churches are defined by their definitions of right (and wrong), while individuals seek after what is true for themselves. What are the values that are most important to uphold and seek?And Why? These are important questions for the young adult to evaluate in coming to terms with what his own passion is and what he wants to commit to.
Progressive Christians are more open to change than the traditional ones. The dilemma for progressives is where to draw the line to maintain a "group identity", where the traditional Christian has all of the elements of his faith defined for him. Progressive Christians base their faith on reason. Traditional Christians base their authority outside of themselves. The question for the Church is whether the Church should see itself as an institution established by God that is not to be questioned, or as a social structure that needs to challenge itself often in its understanding of faith, reason and what that means....otherwise, Christians will be discriminating and not even recognize it, until much too late....
Life. Life is a human universal. Without life, we can not pursue any other opportunity. Life is experienced by the individual. Therefore, individual life must be protected, first and foremost. But, how is life defined? Life can be defined by it's physicality, as well as it's "abundance". If life is limited to the physical aspects, without supporting its abundance, life seems futile. The futility of life is found when man ceases to have "rewards" for his labor, or hope for his goals. While life's rewards and goals are aspects of a flourishing life, life cannot be realized apart from proper government that recognizes the individual's right to pursue his own ends.
Liberty. Government, such as we have in America, encourages engagement and recognizes everyone's right to pursue life's abundance as they deem fit, within the boundaries of law. This is how liberty is defined. But, traditional Christians do not support an individual's right to pursue his own ends, as Christians define life as a commitment to the "cause of the Kingdom of God" (how is the Kingdom defined?), or as a self abenagtion of life, itself. Life cannot be enjoyed for its own sake. It must have a purpose (or function of the church?)! Liberty is not the message of traditional Christian faith, as it is always about God's will and not the individual's will.
Happiness. As Christian faith is about "loving God first", Christians do not affirm seeking "happiness". Happiness is based on circumstances in the material realm, which undermines "faith" in a trascendent reality. The transcendent reality is more important than the real world and life of the individual. Acesticism has been understood as a form of "sanctification" by some, just as it did in Judiasm and other religious faiths. Ascesticism does not affirm the life of the material, but the spiritual. In fact, asceticism denies affirming life's "here and now".
Christian faith has been defined by tradition's doctrine, by Scriptural texts, and by Church authorities, but has never affirmed tolerance of individual difference. This is the reason why so many churches split over how they understand their faith and its commitments. This has happened historically and is still occurring. Churches are defined by their definitions of right (and wrong), while individuals seek after what is true for themselves. What are the values that are most important to uphold and seek?And Why? These are important questions for the young adult to evaluate in coming to terms with what his own passion is and what he wants to commit to.
Progressive Christians are more open to change than the traditional ones. The dilemma for progressives is where to draw the line to maintain a "group identity", where the traditional Christian has all of the elements of his faith defined for him. Progressive Christians base their faith on reason. Traditional Christians base their authority outside of themselves. The question for the Church is whether the Church should see itself as an institution established by God that is not to be questioned, or as a social structure that needs to challenge itself often in its understanding of faith, reason and what that means....otherwise, Christians will be discriminating and not even recognize it, until much too late....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
