A Note for Humanism and It's Ideals

I have been reading and reading and it seems to me that today's thrust for religion is humanistis, rather than Theistic. But, what are the problems of humanism, as an ideal? Humanism can't be held as individuals in their OWN right are the only end, not some cultural "ideal"! Otherwise, individuals are not values, only the "ideal", which is unattainable in this world.

All "solutions" are pragmatic ones, which mean that there is planning and "engineering" of sorts, which makes for success in a given strategy. But, goals of universalization or universals, themselves aren't pragmatic, because the world is much too large and diverse. Unless one wants to promote a uniformity upon the world. This solution politically and practically speaking is 'communism". Equality is regulated by some "power" which is unregulated itself. And this is the problem, isn't it?

Yesterday, when I heard that we would be sending special troops into Central Africa, I wondered why. Was it necessary to sacrifice our special forces to such an endeavor, when we are already stretched militarily and financially? Didn't our Constituton ask the President and other elected officials to protect our country and uphold our Constitution? Then, how come our Representatives are not protecting OUR interests? This is an underhanded way to promote humanistic values, isn't it? And is the intent to dissolve our nation of it power, to prevent "special priviledge'? Or is it our "moral duty" to protect the loss of life in ALL OTHER countries, at the same time reducing our military budgets and submitting to tyranncial governments? What is to be the outcome IF we do not RESIST such governments? And haven't our attempts to equip others to protect themselves ended up backfiring on us at a later date? There will not be Utopian ideals attained in this world and life. And yet, humanists want Utopian ideals and dreams.

The Jews have been the foundation to a Christian undestanding of "priviledge" and our humanitarian values have should restitution to the Holocost for them. What is to be our resitution to the world in giving this land to the Jews? Will the Jews continue to be ostericized by the world and hated by the Muslim? Do we think that when we try to rectify "injustice", as perceived by one that we un-do justice on the other hand? Will our attempts at pacifying Islam result in what has been a warning from those that should know; Islam's desire to hold global power and dominance?

It seems to me that there is a naive and idealistic hope that the "world will live in peace" and we will all live happily ever after! The problem is; if that can't be true for each and all individuals, then how in the Hell can it be true for the WORLD? Society is only made up of individuals, as society ONLY exists in the mind!!

Pragmatic Solutions Don't Answer the Ideals

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "Hope" of the Human Heart and Negotiating on Difference

Last post, I recognized that negotiation of differences, is an "ideal". Negotiation assumes mutual respect and trust. Mutual respect and trust does not exist among nations, nor does it exist in many personal relationships. Nations are self-interested, just as individual humans. Nation-states justify their actions to citizens depending on their ultimate values, just as indiviudals do. The "ideals" of the human heart are the material for "world politics".

America values individual liberty and its "ideal" is an informed citizenry. Without "freedom of the Press", there can be no liberty, because "the people" cannot have the knowledge that is necessary to hold government 'accountable'. An informed citizenry also, means that people take the time to investigate the issues, but many haven't the time to be interested, except when it concerns their present circumstances. The "ideals" are negotiated by those that are invested and interested in such matters. Propaganda is known to control the minds of the mindless, and those under dominating societies that do not value liberty and individuality. Educating the populace is the only hope for remaining a free society.

Negotiation is diplomacy, as it values cultural diversity, while upholding the value of 'world/global concerns that impose upon the nation-state. International politics underwrites much of what we read in the paper, but I wonder if all the power brokers and their negotiations are "upfront" in eye of the public? It makes one wonder when actions are taken that make one question the rationale, with little justification coming from Washington, what is really happening to the "hope of the human heart"?  (the hope to be remain free).

There is little to support that we will ever find Utopian ideals realized, where all men are free, and equal. This is why we "order society" to find the "best fit" for negotiating the differences.

Education for Vocational Purposes Only?

 The education conferene this past Friday continues to "brew" in my mind. What is education really for? Is education only for preparing for a vocation? Is an education also for developing the person, or the "self"? Aren't parents the main influence on a child's life in educational edndeavors and how education is percieved? America has come to not value education for the most part, because of America's entertainment mind-set. And, I think this is a downfall to our culture as a whole. But, if education is to be a value, the question is how is education to be paid for and what would be the "end" of education, then?

Patronage was useful since the beginnings of the university. Patronage was first given under the auspices of the Church, while today, we have "public education". And recently, there has been more talk of business as the patron of education. If the Church was to create the "moral model" in education, and the government tends toward the "mass production" model, then what would be the result of business interests getting their hands into education?

The main purpose of a business adventure into education would be for profit. Businesses are mainly interested in profit and there certainly is nothing wrong with profits. The question comes from how business 'investments' in education are handled, as ethics should alway hold sway over business profit margins, as ethics remembers that there are more important aspects to education than profit itself.

Education is in a crisis today and the President has been interested in addressing such problems, knowing that without an education, people will not have a way out of the present economice crisis and the trasition from a manufactoring/industrialized nation, to a communication/information one.

The question that interests me is; Is education for vocational purposes alone? No, because vocation is only the way a person makes money, while an educated population is needed to remain free. Why is this so?

Propaganda is useful to control populations in totaltalitarian regimes. An uneducated population is necessary to further propaganda's purposes, that is, to "control the minds" of the public, so that social order will remain peaceful. The ruling elite will "do as they please", while the population is listening to the "public radio" that tells them how to think and what to believe. This is a danger to America.

But on the other hand, "public" is not a necessarily for Propaganda, if public means solidarity, or fous, as a nation. What should unify our nation, that is a question to be pondered.

So, which model will be best for education? Will the Church's educational model for human development, public interests model or business interests model?

The Church as an institution is to maintain the virtue in a society. And virtue is what is needed for all citizens, not just the "peasant". Leaders are to have the character necessary to inform their conscience, so that they will govern with discretion and discernment. This is necessary for America's future. Otherwise, we will live by the "tribe", or "fittest" mentality. Equal is what America holds dear and makes it a free nation. Equal is about justice.

America's profit margins have become obsessions and have driven men to unethical behavior. This is why our country is having its culture crisis. We cannot trust our elected officials to see themselves as servants of their people. They have become rulers, and dictators, in certain areas. And this is unbecoming to American values, liberties and "ideals".

Education must change if there is to be "hope for America".

When Rights Make Wrongs

Rights are the American "birth-right", as Americans believe that the individual matters. But, when do rights make for wrongs? Rights have limitations, don't they? Or do they?

Last night, I watched Geraldo, who had asked a Black Panther onto his show. Geraldo, Fox News, and many other America institutions were villified in the name of "civil rights". Film clip snippetts were shown where Black Panthers were calling for violence to establish justice. Geraldo was visibly upset and disturbed over the "racist rhetoric" and tried unsuccessful (IMO) to get this Black Panther lawyer to see or listen to his viewpoint. What would have been the response if a white person had said similar racist statements, calling for "equality" and "justice"?

It was obvious after a few minutes that the conversation was not going to be a dialogue, or even a question and answer format, but a controlled and determined rant on how the African American has been treated. The "old, old" story of discrimination, a lack of equal opportunity, etc. etc.

When Geraldo tried to point out how it was the white majority that fought in the Civil War, elected Abraham Lincoln, etc., the Black Panther repeated that Glenn Beck was being pointedly disrespectful to host a 'tea party' on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on Martin Luther King's birthday. Do whites not have any rights on Martin Luther King's birthday? Do we not have a right to the Lincoln Memorial, or is it only a "Black" sanctuary, holy ground for sacred rights?

I don't know where this will end, but it must. Groups that demand rights, divide our nation and bring disharmony to society.

Is there a difference when African Americans "speak hotly" and angrily about "civil rights" and when the "tea parties" do?

I think so. But, why?

The tea parties seek to bring accountability to government where there has been unaccountability. America is a representative Republic, where the representatives have not heard or do not care to represent their contiuencies. We are going to be taxed for a healthcare plan that the majority did not want. And the administrator of Medicare seems to have oppositional views from the American populace.

Accountability and equality were the themes in the beginning of Martin Luther King's civil rights movement. Today, though, after equal rights have been passed, and anti-discrimanatory laws have been "established", people have come to accept diversity and expect it. No one can help individual cases where prejuidiced people do evil things in the name of their prejuidice. We shouldn't be surprised by such behavior, as humans do divide and understand their "world" by categorization.

These Black Panthers are seeking justice by angry dissent, without considering any other point of view than their own.

Groups that seek to divide America by strife and bitterness should have their rights stripped from them. America is a free nation and one can find some place to belong, without demanding uniformity when it comes to the diverse population that makes America what it is. We are not to be united by creed, race, or social standing. We are Americans, and we are united by our liberty. The very liberty that is being challenged by those that seek to suggest that America is an imperialistic, and bigotted nation.

LIBERTY OR EQUALITY

There has been some discussion in some of my readings about whether liberty or equality is of utmost importance. There seems to be a move in progressive circles to affirm equality over liberty. As equality is about the underpriviledged, the minority or the "outsider". The move toward equality is a global move to universalize resources and opportunities.

While equality is important if one is looking at discrepencies, is equality to be measure by outcome orl in opprotunity? One views equality in absolute terms, while the other affirms individual choice and value of self-responsiblity.

Redistribution of wealth is one such concern for the progressive. This is not about opportunity, but stealing another's goods and limiting free enterprise. Opportunity, on the other hand, is about making sure that another has a right to make a living, or get an education. But, opportunity, again, does not mean prescriptive measures of ensuring ends that may co-opt choices about the type of education or how that education or living is to "be". Again, the progressive wants to assure 'ends" or outcomes.

Liberty is valued by the conservative, as this ensures the right of the individual to take responsibility for self-governance. Self governance is the basis of civil society because laws cannot maintain liberty, as they limit or prescribe behavior. Liberty is about the ability to make life choices, without co-ercion.

Liberty is a value of liberal democracy because it means open, and engaging. And civil society must allow that opennes, otherwise we limit diverse viewpoints, and this hinders the democratic process itself.

Personal Reflection on Moral Imperatives

Someone I care about in my family is suffering from back problems. Severe pain deters him from getting about, as usual. Because of his status in the family, all members are wrangling about what their part should be. This has caused me much reflection.

Families are places of identity, comfort, pain, and even, disconnect, at times. But, family bonds go beyond normal boundaries of choice. Without an ability to choose one's family of origin, the child is bound to be formed without his conscious choice and coming to terms with his own values, until a lot later in life.

The relationships in families are important ones to develop, as they are historical and personal. But, so often in families, there is a lack of communication and appreciation of differences, which is often the case in any relationship.

Today, while talking with this person and inquiring about his condition, I encouraged him to puruse his own course, as I believe that it is important for him to maintain his dignity, especially when his dignity is being physically challenged. It is important for there to be equal respect and honor concerning his "voice". It is de-meaning and de-morallizing to not have a voice about one's life in the first place, not to mention the struggle to grapple with the "what ifs". So, my suggestion to the family is to listen carefully in the midst of great concern, to listen for his voice. Ask questions about his wishes and honor them, as this will speak to him of our love and value of him as a person, in his own right.

Perhaps, because of my upbringing, it is very important to me that there be equal representation. Everyone in the family is important and valued, but different. These differences are to be applauded, challenged, and compromised or negotiated. We will many times disagree, but the important thing is to express our love and honor, as we all want to do.

Tonight, my family will meet, but I will not be there. A nephew, who is a physician, will ask, talk and listen and hopefully be able to come to some decisions about what are the wishes and desires of this important person in our lives. I wish I could be there. I will be in spirit. And my aunt made sure that my voice was heard, as she called to inform me. I appreciate that and her.

My personal reflection on this event has made it obvious that we will all see different moral imperatives. Wouldn't it be a shame if each one of us insisted that their view was the absolute moral imperative? Wouldn't that express the epitome of moral insensitivity and ethical impropriety? And how would that express what each of us desires most to do? Wouldn't it defeat the ultimate purpose we have about this important person, to be honored and cherished? I think so.

Frames, Forms and "Formation"

This morning's message was on 'unity" and how important unity was/is. The commendation to corforming one's opinion to the tradition of the text of scripture and the 'form of Christ", was a unified way of understanding, which is based on "tradition", instead of "agreeing to disagree" (reason). Christ and who he has been undestood to be as the Chruch (tradition) has interpreted his life (doctrine) is to be the "form". But, is this necessarily true?

The "pastor" suggested a "faith," that was mindless and not based on reason. Reason subverts faith, in this scenario, because "ideas" were viewed as "endless speculation" and "not after Christ" (text). I disagree. Will the pastor "tolerate" (live in unity) with my disagreement? Or do I have to conform to this pastor's understanding because she is after all the "leader"? I think not.

I find that unity is not about beliefs (text and tradition), as beliefs will always be formulated differently, depending on one's frames and the forms, which represent the highest value of a certain individual. Even in using "Jesus, as the Christ" as the "form" universally, is invalidated, because there are so many ways that his life has been understood. So, unity cannot be in beliefs, because otherwise, we would have to agree about things that it is impossible to agree about. We have different ways of understanding, formulating and thinking about "reality". These ways of understanding are not absolute, as they represent certain contexts of personal, and cultural "conviction".

So, what is unity about? Unity is about attitude toward another's right to exist. The other has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Prejuidice is a pre-judging according to some "group" standardization and understanding. There is nothing wrong, in fact, it is informative in some settings to understand another groups "convictions", ideas, and opinions, as this helps the sociologist, and anthropoligist to "diagnose" how a certain culture "functions".

Functioning cultures are those that are based on an "ordered government". The differences of government depend on the ideas that "form" that government. Government is about equality and law. Therefore, government should be a way to protect individual rights under law. Other forms of government are based on absolute power, domination, and even anarchy.

Therefore, unity has to allow diversity, otherwise, unity commends conformity, which is domination of another's view and how they have come to understand and formulate their reality. And domination is not "good government'.

A Critique of "Evil" in a Sermon

It is Easter. Many find this the time to celebrate "hope", but the pastor's sermon was on "the cross", dying, and fruitfulness. Several times he referred to "except a grain of wheat fall in the ground and die, it remains alone"....I imagine his intent was to encourage those who face "evil" that this was a way to produce fruti in one's life.

A grain falling in the ground to die is an agricultrual way to say that our lives are meant to be "given away", which is a fact of anyone's life. It is just "what is the "end" to be for one's life. That is a personal choice. But, he had ominous tones of life being taken, as Jesus' life was. Remember last Sunday's sermon was on "Stolen Identity". He encouraged us to see evil in 'spiritualized terms" of "satan" or the "devil", while suggesting that we were responsible for our sin and must not define it any other way. Nor should we rationalize what we do wrong. This was confusing to me.

I sat there thinking to myself that blaming "satan" was not "taking responsibility(as if any rational person really believes in a "real" person named Satan. I thought the Church had criticized the view of holding two equal powers as heresy, anyway.) I thought that possibly this was a way to dispel responsibility for actions that are no more than horrendously offensive. He attempted to describe war escalation. "Satan" was the way of "scape-goating" evil, and producing "solidarity" with one's "enemy, the one responsible for the "sin". It was a confusing message to me. And it sounded as if he was trying to convince himself that this all was true.

I find that whenever we set out to pre-determine another's action, response, or choice, then we are headed for disaster. And pre-determination is highly problematic morally. I was just reading "A Theory of Justice" by John Rawls today. He argues that there must be a equal liberty for justice to prevail. This is what our Constitution is based upon. We value the individual's right of self-determination. "We hold these truths, to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights...." Justice and fairness is ruling by "consent of the governed". I guess these rules don't apply when it comes to 'religion"....

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)!

What Are The Implications to a Flat, Closed or Open Universe

Last post I was thinking in terms of how one views reality and how that view affected how reality was understood. Now, I want to think about the implications of those views more deeply.

The closed reality is a reality of limited resources and is a backward focused view of history in the real world. Evolutionists think in these terms, as their understanding is a closed system of natural/physical reality. Although natural/physical reality is part of our understanding of the universe via the natural sciences, it should not be our only reality, as a closed universe suggests limitation to the human species. Limitation of natural resources play upon natural fears of death within man and further his fear of death, by re-enforcing a competiveness that is destructive. This is what evolutionists call "survival of the fittest". Even though competition works in the free market, competition should not "drive" men, as men are prone to beat another down by competition. This is not a compassionate way of life, which must be gauged with a balance of power, and accountability.

The flat understanding of reality is the ancient's understanding of "wisdom" and is best understood within religious traditions. Wisdom is the understanding to live one's life with insight. Insight is a knowledge of self and other. Our country's balance of power again breeds the environment of accountability and cicumspection. History does repeat itself, if we are not wise enough to learn from it. This is a backward look into our past, so that we will not be people without self-reflection, which continue to make the same mistakes of those in the past.

The open view of reality is a view of possibility and potentiality. This view paints a hopeful tomorrow, because it is not based on limitation of resources but a prosperity that can benefit all. A limitation of government must be mandated for the individual to attain their highest potential and find the freedom to "be" and "do" whatever their heart finds passion in. America's values are the ones that give hope for the future, as it does not limit individual choice or action. The American dream is one that is filled with the hope of equality. Equality means opportunity, but not necessarily success. Success is for those who choose to continue to be diligent in following their goals to the end. And understanding is given to those who perservere.

I think as we face the global economic crisis, we should be reminded of these truths. For those of us who have lived with little thought for tomorrow and presumed upon the future, perhaps we need to reflect on our lack of wisdom. And for those of us who have thought that controlling the limited resources either through hoarding, or controlling others, we should learn to be accountable. And those who have lived with little means really have little to learn as this is not "their lesson", but ours.

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!

In Light of Divinity

In light of my last post, the State as an ultimate value, I argued for our protections under law. Ours is a free society that protects individual rights.

Many religious people believe that worship is due to divinity. The divine has been understood within many human forms, and humans have attempted to universalize their understanding of divinity. Government was one way to uphold "divine rights" of kings, as it was understood that leadership represented "god". While this form of government is legitimate, our form of governing is a unique enterprise of respresentation as all are divine images of God. I think this is a more correct view and it defends the rights of everyone before law. Law, has taken the place of "the king" in our democracy for equality, liberty and justice is underwritten by our laws.

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....

Discrimination, Liberty, and Value

What is the highest value when it comes to a culture?
I just read on 'First Things" that there was a distinction made between the values of equality and liberty. Where Europe prioritizes equality, the United States values liberty. Which value should be prioritized?

If one prioritizes equality, then, how is there anyway to 'police" that value? Wouldn't government be a form of inequality, as those in power posiition would determine who was or wasn't discriminating and on what basis (law/rule) that would be determined. Society cannot function apart from government, therefore, equality cannot be prioritized.

If liberty is prioritized, then, would there be equality, because those in government would be implementing laws that would gurantee freedom under law. As long as an individual respected law, then there would be liberty to pursue their own ends. Therefore, good government must prioritize liberty, so that justice can be upheld. There is not justice without liberty.

There has been much talk about Obama being a socialist. I don't know whether he is really commtted to the ideology of socialism, so much as against discrimination and inequality. If you listen to the pastor whose ministry he listened to for over 20 years, then one begins to understand that he wants to make sure that those who have been discriminated against will get their just due. He is for globalization on a wide scale, so that America, as an imperialistic nation, will not implement their culture on another. He is against faith based institutions because he believes in universal education, as well as universal healthcare. He wants government to implement OT law, so that individual liberty is limited to moral responsibilty. This is just short of Shairia law.

I hope that those who care enough about the benefits of living in a free society will take seriously what is at stake in this election and not "toy" with the idea of a Utopian "promise for tomorrow"!

Race, Discrimination, and Endorsement

Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama has been labelled by some as a race issue.

I don't know whether anyone really understands discrimination unless they have experienced it. But, reverse discrimination is what Colin Powell is being accused of. Is an endorsement valid just because they happen to be of a certain group, race, ideology, etc.? is this just and right?

Groupism is unjust in so many ways. Groupism is prejuidicial because groups are defined by certain attributes, ideology, etc. Groups are a way for humans to maintain an identity, but the identity is based on prejuidice. Although I recognize and aknowledge the lack of opportunity that many of certain groups have had, priviledging groups has a downside in meeting quotas, when there are not enough qualified candidates to fulfill a certain position. Is this just, even though it is meant to give equal opportunity? Reverse discrimination is also unfair.

The discriminated form a solidarity to gain a power base and then politic for their group's representation, which is good in our free society. But, equal respresentation of the majority's side also needs acknowledgement. This is only maintaining a balance of power and is just and right.

The fact that Obama is able to run and get his party's nomination is proof that our society is overcoming its bias. Hillary Clinton ran against Obama and was a formable foe. She has broken the wall separating the sexes in powerful leadership roles. I think our country has come a long way from 25 years ago. Granted there will always be segments of the population that remain prejuidiced, but, as more and more minorities gain powerful positions, it will become harder and harder to ignore the facts of equality.

I am hoping that Colin's endorsement is not one that is racially motivated. That would illustrate an ultimate prejuidice.