About:
“My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”
A Representative democracy/Republic is the only way that this philosophy can be valued, as it allows for liberty, diversity and individuality!
Showing posts with label diversity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label diversity. Show all posts
Monday, February 7, 2011
Friday, July 24, 2009
The Question of Inclusion
There are many issues that touch upon the issue of Inclusion; immigration, terrorism, gay rights, and "difference", in general.
Today I visited my hairdresser who had just come back from representing the Episcopol Church as a deputy. He had been informing me of the discussion facing the larger Anglican community concerning "gay rights" and today, informed me that the American Episcopal Church was to be separated partially from the larger Anglican community. Why? The issue concerning "sexual orientation" was of uptmost concern. This particular gay bishop had served faithfully for, I believe, 26 years was a main focus of 'discussion'. This saddens me, as I believe that one can be a person of integrity and be ostercized due to a "protocol", "interpretation", and "difference". This bishop had not been disorderly in his conduct, had served, and loved his church, and yet, is suffering under the judgments of Church he has served.
This is one reason why I believe that our country is so great. While we have had hot debate over immigration policy and all of it has still not been resolved, we do not allow terrorists to intimidate us in maintaining our identity. We are a people who are ruled by law. Public opinion may sway representatives, but let one person "take it to court" and the law will prevail. This is how it should be.
But, some would question whether the judicial branch should be so active in forming our government's society. These believe that progression must be balanced with "tradition", or we will dissolve the very basis of our society and become uncivilized in our pursuit of litigation.
Life consists of conflict. And conflict must be resolved in a way that hears all valid opinions and voices, so that our representative government will truly be representative. This was the basis of Affirmative Action and minority rights, although some believe that these rights have been taken too far.
On the radio today, I heard that the "inclusive healthcare plan", all 1000 or so pages, was read by a jounalist from the Washington Post. She revealed that Dr. Ezekial Emmanuel would be heading up the "new" beauracracy overseeing healthcare. Dr. Emmanual is Ron Emmanuel's brother. Where did the laws against "nepotism" go? As I have said before, universal healthcare under the guise of inclusion, will bring an inclusivity to a "new aristocracy" that will govern us all in overseeing our decisions and limiting our choices. Inclusion is a relative term, in this sense.
I don't know about you, but it seems that our culture is ridden with all kinds of questions, values, and opinions, that do not bring any resolution only difference and disassociation. Disassociation from those that differ from oneself in a free society like ours, dissolves our country's unity. Our unity is in our freedom of diversity, so we should celebrate it, and not be so dogmatically opinionated about our view that we cannot understand another American, who values freedom just like we do.
Today I visited my hairdresser who had just come back from representing the Episcopol Church as a deputy. He had been informing me of the discussion facing the larger Anglican community concerning "gay rights" and today, informed me that the American Episcopal Church was to be separated partially from the larger Anglican community. Why? The issue concerning "sexual orientation" was of uptmost concern. This particular gay bishop had served faithfully for, I believe, 26 years was a main focus of 'discussion'. This saddens me, as I believe that one can be a person of integrity and be ostercized due to a "protocol", "interpretation", and "difference". This bishop had not been disorderly in his conduct, had served, and loved his church, and yet, is suffering under the judgments of Church he has served.
This is one reason why I believe that our country is so great. While we have had hot debate over immigration policy and all of it has still not been resolved, we do not allow terrorists to intimidate us in maintaining our identity. We are a people who are ruled by law. Public opinion may sway representatives, but let one person "take it to court" and the law will prevail. This is how it should be.
But, some would question whether the judicial branch should be so active in forming our government's society. These believe that progression must be balanced with "tradition", or we will dissolve the very basis of our society and become uncivilized in our pursuit of litigation.
Life consists of conflict. And conflict must be resolved in a way that hears all valid opinions and voices, so that our representative government will truly be representative. This was the basis of Affirmative Action and minority rights, although some believe that these rights have been taken too far.
On the radio today, I heard that the "inclusive healthcare plan", all 1000 or so pages, was read by a jounalist from the Washington Post. She revealed that Dr. Ezekial Emmanuel would be heading up the "new" beauracracy overseeing healthcare. Dr. Emmanual is Ron Emmanuel's brother. Where did the laws against "nepotism" go? As I have said before, universal healthcare under the guise of inclusion, will bring an inclusivity to a "new aristocracy" that will govern us all in overseeing our decisions and limiting our choices. Inclusion is a relative term, in this sense.
I don't know about you, but it seems that our culture is ridden with all kinds of questions, values, and opinions, that do not bring any resolution only difference and disassociation. Disassociation from those that differ from oneself in a free society like ours, dissolves our country's unity. Our unity is in our freedom of diversity, so we should celebrate it, and not be so dogmatically opinionated about our view that we cannot understand another American, who values freedom just like we do.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Liberty and Marriage and Parenting
Marriage is a social structure and a social contract. Social structures have functions in society, but are not necessarily to be understood as static, as any healthy relationship grows with the people involved. Social contract is the communicated and agreed upon expectations about the marrage.
I find that those who adhere to a traditional conservative view of marriage, sometimes do not allow freedom to the individuals to formulate their own roles within the marriage, as they are defined in static form by the text of scripture. These make no allowance for individual conscience or identity apart from the marriage unit. In psychological terms, identities become "enmeshed", or "enabling" or "authoriatarian" and "overbearing", instead of functioning in a healthy dynamic way.
Communication is key to the continued intimacy in a changing relationship, as otherwise, there will be no ongoing understanding. Some think that there is no need to communicate, as their expectations of their marital partner is already understood, because of the "role" the other is to perform. Performance of any function is a de-humanizing way to "be" in a relationship. The standardization of marriage leads to a suppression of individual differences in talents as well as conscience.
I have used Jenny Sandford as an example of a healthy individual. She has not defined herself by her role, but understands that her person is not defined as Gov. Sandford's wife, but as a separate identity with a separate career. She also gives her husband room to choose what he will be and what he will do. This is why she can say she will forgive him, but reconcilliation is dependent on him, not just on her part. He must respect her, as well as co-operate in the relationship as an "equal partner". This is common sense, but some Christian marital counselors would condone an unhealthy union, as long as there is no physical abuse.
I think that whenever there are certain prescribed expectations that become formalized, then there will definately be an unhealthy relationship, as relationship is not about the "formula" but about the individuals involved. Their distinct uniqueness as individuals is impossible to define within a " roles or functions" understanding or mentality.
Expectations that are defined universally and not specifically, are a hinderance to the relationship. There is no form for marriage, in regards to roles and functions, just as there are no "formulas" that define what universal parenting should look like, except that the parent is interested in the best for the child.
Good parenting takes wisdom and makes room for the child's individual differences. Bad parenting does not allow the child to develop properly as it is overbearing, indifferent, or hovering. These bad parenting models are more about the parent's needs, than the child's. So, it takes a mature adult to raise a child and to be a good parent.
And it takes a mature person to be in an intimate relationship that is healthy and growing. Fortunately, our country allows diverse views and opinions. This is healthy for the individual, as well as the social structures.
I find that those who adhere to a traditional conservative view of marriage, sometimes do not allow freedom to the individuals to formulate their own roles within the marriage, as they are defined in static form by the text of scripture. These make no allowance for individual conscience or identity apart from the marriage unit. In psychological terms, identities become "enmeshed", or "enabling" or "authoriatarian" and "overbearing", instead of functioning in a healthy dynamic way.
Communication is key to the continued intimacy in a changing relationship, as otherwise, there will be no ongoing understanding. Some think that there is no need to communicate, as their expectations of their marital partner is already understood, because of the "role" the other is to perform. Performance of any function is a de-humanizing way to "be" in a relationship. The standardization of marriage leads to a suppression of individual differences in talents as well as conscience.
I have used Jenny Sandford as an example of a healthy individual. She has not defined herself by her role, but understands that her person is not defined as Gov. Sandford's wife, but as a separate identity with a separate career. She also gives her husband room to choose what he will be and what he will do. This is why she can say she will forgive him, but reconcilliation is dependent on him, not just on her part. He must respect her, as well as co-operate in the relationship as an "equal partner". This is common sense, but some Christian marital counselors would condone an unhealthy union, as long as there is no physical abuse.
I think that whenever there are certain prescribed expectations that become formalized, then there will definately be an unhealthy relationship, as relationship is not about the "formula" but about the individuals involved. Their distinct uniqueness as individuals is impossible to define within a " roles or functions" understanding or mentality.
Expectations that are defined universally and not specifically, are a hinderance to the relationship. There is no form for marriage, in regards to roles and functions, just as there are no "formulas" that define what universal parenting should look like, except that the parent is interested in the best for the child.
Good parenting takes wisdom and makes room for the child's individual differences. Bad parenting does not allow the child to develop properly as it is overbearing, indifferent, or hovering. These bad parenting models are more about the parent's needs, than the child's. So, it takes a mature adult to raise a child and to be a good parent.
And it takes a mature person to be in an intimate relationship that is healthy and growing. Fortunately, our country allows diverse views and opinions. This is healthy for the individual, as well as the social structures.
Monday, June 29, 2009
A Call to Uniformity?
I had the radio on, while I was doing some "chores" today and heard an "annonymous" call to consider the social /communal, instead of the individual. This irked me, because it "calls others to the table, when the table is already set". Predetermination is not a value of American ideals in individual liberties of conscience. Paternalistic and patronizing ways of understanding one's social obligation and concern "rub me the wrong way", because it is presumptive of what "should be" of ultimate concern to the individual!
What ultimately is the "outcome" of such a "call" of concern? A uniformity of vision. A "moral obligation". A "religious duty". All subvert independece, liberty and creativity.
Much has been said about America's "universal" ideology, which is true. But, those whose commitment is to the "greater good" of humanity are not affirming of individual nation-states, but a globlaized "one world". How can American ideals be universal, while America holds to a sovereign right to maintain their own boundaries/securities/interests, and yet, maintain the "moral high ground"?
The religious have 'played into the hands" of these globalists for the "sake of humanity or God". These use terms like "building God's Kingdom", "missional", "communal", 'worldview", world changers", etc. focus on "wholistic understanding". These are rational in their commitments, but they call also for postmodernity's "localism", contextualizing the universal into specificities. This is the understanding of the universal and particular.
I think the height of immorality and injustice is limiting individuality in choice and liberty of conscience and conviction. Traditions do not adhere to such liberties, as they demand comformity of opinion and conviciton and commitment. They gauge each individual by the definitions of the "approved" authority. These authorities seek to bring about a uniform and unified "vision" of " god" or "purpose". There is no diversity in such groups, only conformity. So, beware of the rationalists who "use" relgion as a means of accomplishing ends that subvert individual liberties.
What ultimately is the "outcome" of such a "call" of concern? A uniformity of vision. A "moral obligation". A "religious duty". All subvert independece, liberty and creativity.
Much has been said about America's "universal" ideology, which is true. But, those whose commitment is to the "greater good" of humanity are not affirming of individual nation-states, but a globlaized "one world". How can American ideals be universal, while America holds to a sovereign right to maintain their own boundaries/securities/interests, and yet, maintain the "moral high ground"?
The religious have 'played into the hands" of these globalists for the "sake of humanity or God". These use terms like "building God's Kingdom", "missional", "communal", 'worldview", world changers", etc. focus on "wholistic understanding". These are rational in their commitments, but they call also for postmodernity's "localism", contextualizing the universal into specificities. This is the understanding of the universal and particular.
I think the height of immorality and injustice is limiting individuality in choice and liberty of conscience and conviction. Traditions do not adhere to such liberties, as they demand comformity of opinion and conviciton and commitment. They gauge each individual by the definitions of the "approved" authority. These authorities seek to bring about a uniform and unified "vision" of " god" or "purpose". There is no diversity in such groups, only conformity. So, beware of the rationalists who "use" relgion as a means of accomplishing ends that subvert individual liberties.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
What Is a "Dog" in Cultural Terms?
"Dog" was a derogatory term in scripture. "As a dog returns to his vomit"....dogs are still understood in derogatory ways. Both science and religion use the term differently from their perspectives.
Science uses "dog" as those who are not "top dogs", as science understands the "survival of the fittest" and since this is the "way of the world", this is the way they understand survival. It lacks humility and evenness of temper concerning reason's "claims" to truth! Because science is focused on the pragmatic, it looses focus on more universal reasons of practice. Sciences specificity dissolves ways of crossing boundaries of understanding, as its understandings are so specifically specialized. It demands diversity at the expense of unity. But, it is reason's strength.
While science's claims can be arrogant and dissolve focus on a unifying focus, so are religious claims to truth. Religion understands itself as the "center of the universe", while dismissing the absolute vastness that is the universe. The Church's understanding remains ideologically similar to their view of the physical universe in the past. The earth was considered the center by the Church, but science revealed that the earth was not the center. While the Church eventually came to embrace science's claims, it still remains convinced of itself as "the center" of truth, not understanding it's purpose. Religion is contextually oriented without knowing it. "Dogs" in religious terms are those who do not adhere to understanding their way (cultural distinctives). Religion demands conformity and limits diversity
This is where the university should live, in the space between the two! The universals of science must understand that they only know in part, while attempting to understand the whole. And religion should understand their contextuality of "difference" is not universal, but no less important to affirm. The Church is one among many faiths, which represent many cultural forms of understanding "god".
Diversity in unity and unity in diversity is imperative in this complex, interdependent and vast "world". We should not define our understandings as ultimate, but broaden our understandings through diverse interactions with others that are open to difference and open to learn. None of us will know everything there is to know, but I have a dream that one day, all of us will become unified diversity.
Science uses "dog" as those who are not "top dogs", as science understands the "survival of the fittest" and since this is the "way of the world", this is the way they understand survival. It lacks humility and evenness of temper concerning reason's "claims" to truth! Because science is focused on the pragmatic, it looses focus on more universal reasons of practice. Sciences specificity dissolves ways of crossing boundaries of understanding, as its understandings are so specifically specialized. It demands diversity at the expense of unity. But, it is reason's strength.
While science's claims can be arrogant and dissolve focus on a unifying focus, so are religious claims to truth. Religion understands itself as the "center of the universe", while dismissing the absolute vastness that is the universe. The Church's understanding remains ideologically similar to their view of the physical universe in the past. The earth was considered the center by the Church, but science revealed that the earth was not the center. While the Church eventually came to embrace science's claims, it still remains convinced of itself as "the center" of truth, not understanding it's purpose. Religion is contextually oriented without knowing it. "Dogs" in religious terms are those who do not adhere to understanding their way (cultural distinctives). Religion demands conformity and limits diversity
This is where the university should live, in the space between the two! The universals of science must understand that they only know in part, while attempting to understand the whole. And religion should understand their contextuality of "difference" is not universal, but no less important to affirm. The Church is one among many faiths, which represent many cultural forms of understanding "god".
Diversity in unity and unity in diversity is imperative in this complex, interdependent and vast "world". We should not define our understandings as ultimate, but broaden our understandings through diverse interactions with others that are open to difference and open to learn. None of us will know everything there is to know, but I have a dream that one day, all of us will become unified diversity.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Monsters, Aliens, and Other "Stangeness"
Some in the blogosphere have been "talking" about monsters and aliens. What is a monster or an alien, but those who are outside our frames of reference. Or those who appear to have some form of deformity (spiritual, mental, emotional, intellectual, social, etc.) according to our "standards". These people challenge our comfort zones, because they create a tension in how we understand ourselves. We love people that are "just like us", because they affirm us, instead of challenging us.
While these people create tensions to our identity, they need to be understood, to be cared for, etc. At the same time, it is all right to maintain our boundaries, which define our differences, as well. This is, again, what makes our country great, as we do not establish/sanction a religion or specific culture.
Just recently, when we were in D.C. I noticed that the Kennedy Center was having a cultural exchange, of sorts, in the arts of the "Middle East" and the Shakespeare Theatre was offering a "translated" interpretation of Shakespeare's "Richard" into Islamic terms. Unfortunately, we were already "committed", so we did not attend. I thought this was a fascinating concept, though, as I have attended such "adventures" in the past. One does not have to live in another country to "understand" or have exposure to 'others" and their "world". And this type of exchange helps us to appreciate their forms of art.
When we appreciate a culture that is different from ours, through the arts we have learned and grown in awareness of "difference" and that is an education, itself.
While these people create tensions to our identity, they need to be understood, to be cared for, etc. At the same time, it is all right to maintain our boundaries, which define our differences, as well. This is, again, what makes our country great, as we do not establish/sanction a religion or specific culture.
Just recently, when we were in D.C. I noticed that the Kennedy Center was having a cultural exchange, of sorts, in the arts of the "Middle East" and the Shakespeare Theatre was offering a "translated" interpretation of Shakespeare's "Richard" into Islamic terms. Unfortunately, we were already "committed", so we did not attend. I thought this was a fascinating concept, though, as I have attended such "adventures" in the past. One does not have to live in another country to "understand" or have exposure to 'others" and their "world". And this type of exchange helps us to appreciate their forms of art.
When we appreciate a culture that is different from ours, through the arts we have learned and grown in awareness of "difference" and that is an education, itself.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Unified Diversity
With all of the discussion over whether a text is "special revelation", or by what means is a particular denomination to understand faith and how that plays out in orthopraxy, it seems that there should be a loud and clear call for a "peace treaty" on absolute truth claims.
Battle scars are many where there is an absolute claim on truth. Humans suffer in many ways because we justify actions based on our own limited understanding of what constitutes right behavior.We all have personal values and convictions on what is right or wrong, but sometimes we hold these convictions with little or no reflection. When there is little of no reflection on things that matter or should matter most, which are the ideals we live by, there is limitation on life itself. Socrates said "An unexamined life, is not worth living".
What would it be like to live in a world that let everyone seek their own life, with no interference? If one could pursue interests that were the "ideals" one valued? And everyone left others alone that differed? The world, yes, would be compartmentalized by many "differences", but wouldn't that breed a culture of acceptance and value of difference? And wouldn't it reflect a larger view of "truth" and breed a culture of understanding? Living in unified diversity is what I would call "heaven", as each would "be" and "do" as he understood to be of importance and of value. Then, peace would abound and no one would have a privy or right to jusitfy "speical priviledge" or "special rights", as everyone would be equally respected under "law".
I think this is the "ideal" of our American government. While fundamentalists of all kinds feel it their duty, to warn, rebuke, correct, and convert, I think a more healthy attitude toward self and neighbor is seeking understanding dialogue. Most religions, though, are based on a limited understanding of life and the values of the "transcendent" over-ride one's duty toward others and real life in this world. Is religion dangerous? I am beginning to think so.
Battle scars are many where there is an absolute claim on truth. Humans suffer in many ways because we justify actions based on our own limited understanding of what constitutes right behavior.We all have personal values and convictions on what is right or wrong, but sometimes we hold these convictions with little or no reflection. When there is little of no reflection on things that matter or should matter most, which are the ideals we live by, there is limitation on life itself. Socrates said "An unexamined life, is not worth living".
What would it be like to live in a world that let everyone seek their own life, with no interference? If one could pursue interests that were the "ideals" one valued? And everyone left others alone that differed? The world, yes, would be compartmentalized by many "differences", but wouldn't that breed a culture of acceptance and value of difference? And wouldn't it reflect a larger view of "truth" and breed a culture of understanding? Living in unified diversity is what I would call "heaven", as each would "be" and "do" as he understood to be of importance and of value. Then, peace would abound and no one would have a privy or right to jusitfy "speical priviledge" or "special rights", as everyone would be equally respected under "law".
I think this is the "ideal" of our American government. While fundamentalists of all kinds feel it their duty, to warn, rebuke, correct, and convert, I think a more healthy attitude toward self and neighbor is seeking understanding dialogue. Most religions, though, are based on a limited understanding of life and the values of the "transcendent" over-ride one's duty toward others and real life in this world. Is religion dangerous? I am beginning to think so.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Some Believe....
Some believe that one has to submit to circustances at all costs, otherwise, you will miss the opportunity to "learn" from it. There premise is that God controls all events. And theirs is passivity to anything that transpires, as the Greeks understood "fate".
Others believe that we should promote our views at all costs, even to the point of revolution, because it is our right and duty to inform others of what we think is most important.The premise in this view is an absolute "truth" or "value" that cannot be tolerant of diverse viewpoints.
While I think there is much to be discerned concerning one's personal beliefs., how does one understand life and all of its complexities is a caldrum of many things. There is much that needs to be addressed contextually, but there are broad principles that hold "truths" that cannot be compromised without compromises what defines "who you are" and the values you want to commit and hold to...In this sense there is no "god" teaching outside, although you will learn through any experience, and there is not one "truth", as there are many and various ways of understanding life, God and other...
It becomes a matter of personal choice and commitment, which cannot be determined from the outside.
Others believe that we should promote our views at all costs, even to the point of revolution, because it is our right and duty to inform others of what we think is most important.The premise in this view is an absolute "truth" or "value" that cannot be tolerant of diverse viewpoints.
While I think there is much to be discerned concerning one's personal beliefs., how does one understand life and all of its complexities is a caldrum of many things. There is much that needs to be addressed contextually, but there are broad principles that hold "truths" that cannot be compromised without compromises what defines "who you are" and the values you want to commit and hold to...In this sense there is no "god" teaching outside, although you will learn through any experience, and there is not one "truth", as there are many and various ways of understanding life, God and other...
It becomes a matter of personal choice and commitment, which cannot be determined from the outside.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
A Contextualized Universalism; Faith Within Context
I have been raised in a country, which has traditionally been understood as Christian. Christian faith has been defined in many ways in our culture of diversity, as the United States was founded on the principle of the "freedom of religion". Not only has my own culture affirmed many types of faith within its borders, but postmodernity has also dissolved the understanding of a universal faith. Of course, fundamentalists/conservatives in many religous traiditons have understood their universalization in two ways; contextualizing the text by translation and/or converting others by proselytzing. I don't believe either of these ways affirms what should or ought to be true according to the "law of Christ", which is love.
The human being is made in God's image and has be gifted with reason and talents, which are innate. These gifts have to be trained and encouraged to develop, but always develop within a "context". Because man is bound within his religious/political/social context, man assumes that his reality of experience is "true". As men are educated about the larger or greater world, they learn that their way of understanding is only one among many.
Yesterday's post was about my grand-daughter's desire to become a princess. Her desire is an innate desire to become, which is a desire to develop and represents her desire to express transcendence! In Christian terms, the "incarnation" was the Christ child, God within flesh. The "sons of God' are those who develp and express their giftings. The human heart should be affirmed in its desires, and not oppressed or suppressed, as the fundamentalists do.
Fundameantlism absolutizes reason, text, tradition, and "self"! Their understanding is the absolute truth and is mainifested in their zeal to convert (at the point of sword/death). Their understanding is a culture of death to other "selves", the physical life of others, and the culture of others. Culture is neutral and should be a place of affirming worship of a transcendent BEING. There is no ONE culture that epitomizes "truth", but is only one form.
Cultural diversity should be affirmed, as long as it allows freedom of expression, without limiting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Culture expresses itself not only in the religious realm of worship, but also the political realm of interantional relations. Globalization has opened our experiential "eyes" to recognize the 'other's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These diverse ways of being in the world are all limited understandings of the 'Universal", but are a necessary part, just the same.
Diversity humbles all of us in understanding our limited "worlds" of reference and helps us to become more understanding of difference. This affirms the "way of love". Love is not defined except in affirming of the other. Of course, that does not mean that we will not question other about certain beliefs or ways of understanding, and hopefully, it will help to educate ourselves and others about the values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The universal is worshipped in many forms, recognizing the human limitations to "truth" claims, which makes for humility and self-examination, which breeds a good cultural climate for dialogue and change. And this is the "way of love" and unity in diversity.
The human being is made in God's image and has be gifted with reason and talents, which are innate. These gifts have to be trained and encouraged to develop, but always develop within a "context". Because man is bound within his religious/political/social context, man assumes that his reality of experience is "true". As men are educated about the larger or greater world, they learn that their way of understanding is only one among many.
Yesterday's post was about my grand-daughter's desire to become a princess. Her desire is an innate desire to become, which is a desire to develop and represents her desire to express transcendence! In Christian terms, the "incarnation" was the Christ child, God within flesh. The "sons of God' are those who develp and express their giftings. The human heart should be affirmed in its desires, and not oppressed or suppressed, as the fundamentalists do.
Fundameantlism absolutizes reason, text, tradition, and "self"! Their understanding is the absolute truth and is mainifested in their zeal to convert (at the point of sword/death). Their understanding is a culture of death to other "selves", the physical life of others, and the culture of others. Culture is neutral and should be a place of affirming worship of a transcendent BEING. There is no ONE culture that epitomizes "truth", but is only one form.
Cultural diversity should be affirmed, as long as it allows freedom of expression, without limiting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Culture expresses itself not only in the religious realm of worship, but also the political realm of interantional relations. Globalization has opened our experiential "eyes" to recognize the 'other's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These diverse ways of being in the world are all limited understandings of the 'Universal", but are a necessary part, just the same.
Diversity humbles all of us in understanding our limited "worlds" of reference and helps us to become more understanding of difference. This affirms the "way of love". Love is not defined except in affirming of the other. Of course, that does not mean that we will not question other about certain beliefs or ways of understanding, and hopefully, it will help to educate ourselves and others about the values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The universal is worshipped in many forms, recognizing the human limitations to "truth" claims, which makes for humility and self-examination, which breeds a good cultural climate for dialogue and change. And this is the "way of love" and unity in diversity.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Behavio (reason), Belief(tradition) or Belonging (experience)
Many have tried to define faith on belief systems, which has done nothing for bringing unity. Others have tried to define unity on practice, or behavior, but this attempt also does not affirm diversity. So, how are we to define and affirm a unity in diversity? Faith.
Faith is in belonging to the human race, which brings unity, while belonging to certain cultures, nationalities, cultures, or traditions, brings about the diverse ways in understanding one's faith. Faith can be in anything, but all of us have faith. Belonging is a matter of finding where we belong, where we agree about how we define our faith. Faith in our common humanity, which needs identification factors in norms of behavior (as defined by religion, culture, or community), will bring about the environment where we can engage in understanding our diverse understandings of faith.
Faith in reason, faith in tradition, or faith in experience will guide the discussion over what our faith means and how that meaning affects our behavior. Behavior cannot be limited to a certain definition, other than a respect and honoring of another's difference. Nor can faith be defined by a spcified understanding, as faith is about our understanding of life itself, which ultimately means we affirm ourselves and another's belonging to the human race.
Faith is in belonging to the human race, which brings unity, while belonging to certain cultures, nationalities, cultures, or traditions, brings about the diverse ways in understanding one's faith. Faith can be in anything, but all of us have faith. Belonging is a matter of finding where we belong, where we agree about how we define our faith. Faith in our common humanity, which needs identification factors in norms of behavior (as defined by religion, culture, or community), will bring about the environment where we can engage in understanding our diverse understandings of faith.
Faith in reason, faith in tradition, or faith in experience will guide the discussion over what our faith means and how that meaning affects our behavior. Behavior cannot be limited to a certain definition, other than a respect and honoring of another's difference. Nor can faith be defined by a spcified understanding, as faith is about our understanding of life itself, which ultimately means we affirm ourselves and another's belonging to the human race.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Culture and Chrstian Faith
In First Things today, it was asserted that Christian faith cannot live without culture. This is true, but the question is, what kind of culture, if there is one, or is there a diversity of culture.
Culture represents the values we hold most dearly and those values are the things that we will live and die for. I think that question needs to be asked and answered, "is Christian faith about belief, belonging, or behavior"? Is there a "Christian culture"? And is Christian faith an exclusivist faith or it is just a reflection of culture itself?
I think that tradition is part of culture, which also adheres to religon and religon's "values". Muslims adhere to a strict culture that is defined by their law, which impacts their culture, in dress, and behavior. On the other hand, the West for the most part, has freedom of conviction and conscience in form of worship, which leads to diversity within culture. Is Christian faith about conformity to the Law, as in Muslim culture, or is Christian faith about diversity and freedom of expression?
The Laws that we hold to are the laws that define our identity as they are things that protect our values. Values cannot be uniform, unless one wants to limit a liberal society. A liberal society is based on reason and not "revelational texts", like theocracys are. I think that whenever a government is defined by "god", we have problems, because it lends itself to justify predjuidice and exclusivity, which undermines universal ethical decision-making. Humans, not "god" are the creators of governments, and the humans who lead the government are responsible as to the type of government that exists and how it governs. Therefore, good government is most important and good governement is only as good as it is limited.
Culture represents the values we hold most dearly and those values are the things that we will live and die for. I think that question needs to be asked and answered, "is Christian faith about belief, belonging, or behavior"? Is there a "Christian culture"? And is Christian faith an exclusivist faith or it is just a reflection of culture itself?
I think that tradition is part of culture, which also adheres to religon and religon's "values". Muslims adhere to a strict culture that is defined by their law, which impacts their culture, in dress, and behavior. On the other hand, the West for the most part, has freedom of conviction and conscience in form of worship, which leads to diversity within culture. Is Christian faith about conformity to the Law, as in Muslim culture, or is Christian faith about diversity and freedom of expression?
The Laws that we hold to are the laws that define our identity as they are things that protect our values. Values cannot be uniform, unless one wants to limit a liberal society. A liberal society is based on reason and not "revelational texts", like theocracys are. I think that whenever a government is defined by "god", we have problems, because it lends itself to justify predjuidice and exclusivity, which undermines universal ethical decision-making. Humans, not "god" are the creators of governments, and the humans who lead the government are responsible as to the type of government that exists and how it governs. Therefore, good government is most important and good governement is only as good as it is limited.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Scripture, Theology and Ethics
Christian faith has been defined by theological reflection uponScripture. Although theologians use Scripture as a guide or framework to develop their theology, theologians differ in what themes they use in Scripture to develop their theology. While some theologians develop their theology grounded in the historical realities of their time or situatededness, all theologians seek to explain God. While this has been a commendable excercise in past times, today's cultural climate challenges theology's connection to reality.
Today's cultural climates has stretched all areas of expertise because of globalization. We are no longer islands of culture separated by miles of distance, but are interacting on a large scale through economic exchange and global networking through the internet. This cultural climate is a unification of all cultures' in many areas, but it challenges how we go about allowing diversity of cultural expression.
Radical Muslims do not adhere to a tolerant attitude or behavior when it comes to difference. A lack of tolerance challenges all of us globally, if we do not learn to get along in our differences. I believe Han Kung has attempted to bring unity through a Global Ethic. I think this is a commenable goal.
While I agree that a Global ethic is necessary to affirm to bring unity, our diversity is no less important to affirm. How do we affirm difference, and yet, remained unified? Is this the challenge of civil discourse? Exclusivist claims to truth in culture is a danger in our climate of globalization. Therefore, it behooves all of us to develop our convictions and reasons for those convictions, while we engage others who differ with graciousness, openness, and tolerance.
I believe that the ideal of unity in diversity is also the American ideal. And I couldn't be happier, than to see democracy extend around the world!
Today's cultural climates has stretched all areas of expertise because of globalization. We are no longer islands of culture separated by miles of distance, but are interacting on a large scale through economic exchange and global networking through the internet. This cultural climate is a unification of all cultures' in many areas, but it challenges how we go about allowing diversity of cultural expression.
Radical Muslims do not adhere to a tolerant attitude or behavior when it comes to difference. A lack of tolerance challenges all of us globally, if we do not learn to get along in our differences. I believe Han Kung has attempted to bring unity through a Global Ethic. I think this is a commenable goal.
While I agree that a Global ethic is necessary to affirm to bring unity, our diversity is no less important to affirm. How do we affirm difference, and yet, remained unified? Is this the challenge of civil discourse? Exclusivist claims to truth in culture is a danger in our climate of globalization. Therefore, it behooves all of us to develop our convictions and reasons for those convictions, while we engage others who differ with graciousness, openness, and tolerance.
I believe that the ideal of unity in diversity is also the American ideal. And I couldn't be happier, than to see democracy extend around the world!
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Communitarianism
I found a web-site on Communitarianism that was fascinating.
While our nation's freedoms have granted the individual rights to pursue their own ends, the values of patriotism, community, service, honor and duty have fallen by the wayside. Communitarians seek to promote an interdependence of the individual and community. Nations only flourish when the individuals within that nation seek to serve their country. And since most individuals will not have the opportunity to serve at a national level, community service is encouraged.
Our nation's diversity is also valued by the Communitarian. Differences are not seen as threats, but as challenges. The differences of race, or ideas are not subverted or short-changed, but are met with an openness within law. The free exchange of ideas and immigration policy itself is met by the Communitarian as an affirmation of values for diverse ways of "seeing".
Even though I am "new" in my exposure to the Communitarian approach, I hope to inform myself more thoroughly of this social/political philosophy, as it lends itself to a "center" that I find more palatable than either conservative or liberal. I think it just may be something to commit to.
While our nation's freedoms have granted the individual rights to pursue their own ends, the values of patriotism, community, service, honor and duty have fallen by the wayside. Communitarians seek to promote an interdependence of the individual and community. Nations only flourish when the individuals within that nation seek to serve their country. And since most individuals will not have the opportunity to serve at a national level, community service is encouraged.
Our nation's diversity is also valued by the Communitarian. Differences are not seen as threats, but as challenges. The differences of race, or ideas are not subverted or short-changed, but are met with an openness within law. The free exchange of ideas and immigration policy itself is met by the Communitarian as an affirmation of values for diverse ways of "seeing".
Even though I am "new" in my exposure to the Communitarian approach, I hope to inform myself more thoroughly of this social/political philosophy, as it lends itself to a "center" that I find more palatable than either conservative or liberal. I think it just may be something to commit to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
