I Have Nothing to Say, But I Must Say It

America is known to be the "land of the free" and the "home of the brave". We love liberty and we value industry. Therefore, we prosper because individuals can find their place in our society and choose how they will be productive citizens. Some who love power and use that power to "lord it over" were limited in their power by our "Bill of Rights". The fight for "freedom of speech", even when it is not "politically correct" is a fight for the brave, who value our liberty too much to see it lost. "Political correctness" is about power and the "right" value according to politics.

Some people love to control other's lives, these like to propagandize what is the "politically correct" position. While granted it is necessary to create boundaries for children, is control really what is best for personal growth and development. as well as affirming 'liberty"? Some think there is no other way to "make sure" things work out the "right way". What is the "right way"? Outcomes? or Moral or Ethical values? Who is to determine what is "right"?

Utility is "making sure" that the right people are in the right place. This is organizational structuring. But, utility controls, as to means. The "right people" must be in the "right place" for outcomes to be guarunteed. But, is this the moral value of American ideals and the ethical value of liberty and choice for individuals? I don't think so.

Control is anathema to American ideals of life and liberty. Control is about power and the use of the law. And such power is not about "equality before the law", but, is about slavery and servitude. These are not American values, as we do not believe it is moral or ethical to undermine liberty of choice and rights before the law.

So, I have nothing to say to those that want to be "politically correct" and use power over granting liberty. I have nothing to say, but I must say it, to those that will listen. Unfortunately, my life is not "politically correct", so I have no right to "free speech". Is this the moral value, we want to promote? I think those that are on "both sides of the aisle" are promoting visions of America that do not lead to liberty, but enslavement of different kinds.

Never Mind Liberal Democracy; God Has the Right...

Today's sermon was again about Jonah. and Jonah's life being a life to teach Christians, not about the "spiritual", but the ethical. The world is to stand at attention by the ethics of the Christian in the midst of suffering, because "God" has that right to humble us. ("God" is understood n many ways, but in this sense it is leadership. The State has the right to define one's life, because the State has the right to be "useful" for and by God. Or some would believe that Church leaders have the right and duty to "develop" the spirituality of their "flock". But, both the State and Church do not have a right in our culture to determine another citizen's life.)

In ancient times, the "sea" was viewed as the danger. The sea was a wide expanse with no knowledge of what was "out there". There was no way of escape when one was "out at sea", except to get out of the sea. Jonah was thrown out at sea and swallowed by a whale. (I'm wondering if in the pastor's mind, the whale is "the church", as the ark was in the story about Noah?) The sailors didn't have an explainaton about what happend except to see it as a tragic event. But, "the Christian" (Jonah) is to see it as "God's training ground", to humble him. He is to submit, not resist, or rebel, then "God will use it" to testify to those who are not christians. I find this a little simplistic, as it requires Jonah to accept his circumstances without any question or answer about "God and his faithfulness". If such a real situaton occurs, the pastor cannot ascertan that "God" will come through when Jonah life had been tragically thrown into an unsafe place! No, all of Jonah's life is to be "put on the chair" of "faith".....no understandng, only pain. And accept this as from the "hand of God"!!!

How odd that the pastor can theologize, while he says theology doesn't work for the world, only the practicalities of a life "well lived". (Is he seeking the "wider frame" of theology, so the Church will have relevance, again?) Yet, he proposes that theology is to bring comfort to Jonah (the Christian). Jonah is to believe that "God has pre-ordained the narrow and confined circumstances of life to benefit the building of the church and to humble Jonah! (God crucifies his children and sacrifices them on the altar of his "self glorificaton" so that others might also worshp his "SELF"! Isn't it really the Church who wants "worship"?). This confining situaton or narrow place is to build "Christlike character" in Jonah...because the Christian isn't to lead, but serve. Don't ask questions, just obey the tyranncal government that is over you. THAT is "God's love" for you, because you should have no choice about your life. It is pre-destined!!! Christians aren't to seek justice, but love mercy. So they don't stand against those that put them in narrow places, they humbly submit!!!( And the Church is doing it to further their interests at your costs, but never mind their ethics, it is your own personal ethics that is important!)

I can believe that those that are under tyrannical government don't have a "life". These have no choices, are they to submit to this type of government? Or are the to seek a liberal democracy that allows liberty of conscience, as to one's life and values? Those that are humanitarians seek this as their "life calling". Those that are behaviorialist seek to conditon the "self" toward the behavoir they deem as important.

It seems to me that those that want to experiment on "The Christian" (or the religious) or those that want to utilize "The Christian" aren't about liberty, but about scientific investigation. And those that theologize such understakings aren't being ethical, but requiring "The Christian" to serve under such leadership. Is that ethical? Are those who seek to use others for their "ends" being ethical? or serving their own interests? Choice must be a value if one wants to maintan a free and open society, otherwise some will be duped under the tyranny of the few and this was not our Founder's vision. We are to be "equal under law" and that means that our liberty of life and values were to be freely chosen, not determined by government or any other elite class!

The Other Side to the Military Draft

The age old question about whether the individual or society has the 'upper hand" has been a question that has always been of interests to sociologists and pscyologists as well as many others. It is not resolved because the tension between individual liberty and social conformity will always remain in tension in a free society. With that in mind, how does one view the "Military Draft"?

The Military Draft is an obligation to the State to defend its foreign policy; its need to undermine rogue governments. It is a citizen's duty to uphold our nation's laws and be dependable in giving to society through one's work. A free society does not determine what one's work "should be" , but the military draft does. As I pointed out in the last post that our free society does not determine an individual's place, so, what should be our stance toward the military draft, then, as individuals?

In the '60's many dodged the draft or protested our war in VietNam. This was the individual's right to resist. Our country values the individual's right to have a conscience about particular wars and defers obligation to "conscientious objectors" because of religious conviction.

Foreign policy is not a straight forward black and white issue, but is wrought with complex issues of economic interests, and political pay-backs or positioning. It is hard to determine what is 'right or wrong" in certain instances because of such a mix of issues or concerns and sometimes a lack of information; human rights, trade, diplomacy,  etc.

I don't think I'm the only American that is ill-informed about such issues, and as the world becomes more "entangled", then it becomes more complicated to unravel the strings. We live within our own interests, all of us, personally and nationally . So, we must admit that and go from there, otherwise, we will be prone to ideological views that only broaden and enrage an otherwise breachable barrier.

People of Faith, Arise (or why faith is dangerous in a real world)

This is to be Rapture Day! Is anyone really disappointed, or fearful that they have been "left behind"? Why would people or anyone believe that one could really "know" these things? Because they have faith! Faith sanctions MANY unreasonable, foolish, and unwise thoughts, actions, convictions, and opinions! But people of Faith cannot be torn away from their "personal experience" which affirms their context!

 These were "born into" a biblical worldview, where Scripture trumps every other kind of knowledge or information! Such an experience can be understood as a transformation, or coversion that makes a difference in how the "world and all that is" is understood. The denominations that affirm such experiences run the gambit from revivalists, holiness, evangelicals, pentecostals, and religious cults of all kinds. Human have religious experiences. This is a fact, but the interpretation of that experience differs. Those within social groups that sanction and affirm such experiences, have self-affirming contexts and collective identities. They can't or won't see any other view, as their view is so tightly wound around "who they know themselves to be".

The danger in such an identity is to the "self" and to the larger world. The "self" of the child raised in such a context is limited by seeking the experience, or depending on experience, or using reason to understand his preferred "worldview" which is the Bible or the Prophet. "Self" isn't understood or seen in a larger dimension than a religious/spiritual one, so "self" will never understand larger issues, problems or complexities in the world.

The larger world is endangered because such people might think that "God" desires to convert the world, and these do damage to the nation-state's sensitive diplomatic efforts. Other cultures are prone to "war" when their understanding is threatened. But, those of "Faith" don't see the danger. They only believe that "God" can do the impossible and that "God" is on their side! Such thinking and behavior is seen as disrespectful of another's interests, though "self interests" hides behind "God". Religious people don't think, they just believe and act on such belief! A dangerous stance toward the world and others.

Besides diplomacy, these can be a thorn in the side of Academics. Such people KNOW what the text means and says, they don't believe in education. They believe in the Holy Spirit as "God's trainer, teacher and friend". It becomes a spiritualized mysticism that is hard to break. Their "personal relationship" is all that matters, because they have found "The Truth" for all times and all people! This way of thinking becomes a danger to society, becasue such believe that the "biblical worldview" should be applied to all of life, which means ethics.

Biblical ethics is an ideal, but cannot be applied without leaving one's head in the sand or "at the door". Pacifists, and self-annilhilation are understood, by some, as the best way to love one's neighbor, but is not loving to oneself. Pacifism doesn't see the real world and make assessments about when the "evil" must be confronted. And self-anilhilation does nothing for the "other" in resisting what must be resisted or confronting what needs confronting. Accountability is not seen as a neccessity.

"Self" whether one's natural tendency is agressive or passive is sanctioned under the experience of "God" and not seen for what it is and equality under law should be held as accountability for the aggressive and the passive. One sees themselves as the "leader", "Prophet", or "specially annointed", while the other meekly submits to self annilhilation and hatred. It emboldens evil and it destroys justice.

Faith is not something that humans should base their lives on in the real world. The real world works in the way it works and it is best to start to understand what that is, and how that is defined. The Academy is the first place to begin, then one can approach the world, self, and the other with more amnunition than just "have faith", or "just believe".

The Church Justifies the Moral Ought

Groups must be identified by their collective goals, or purposes. This is how groups function, otherwise, their is no reason for groups to exist.
 Individuals, on the other hand, don't have to have a reason to exist, as the individual is to be the "end" in himself. The individual  must have the right to life and liberty, otherwise, his life is not his own. He becomes the slave to a "moral oughtness".
Therefore, while groups, such as the Church may demand "moral oughts", they must give room for individual choice, otherwise the "moral ought" has lost any values to it's "moral oughtness". Choice is the determinitive "end" of moral value. The individual must make the choice about moral value, not the Church.

A few posts ago, I wrote on the issue of abortion. I challenged my friend's post about "pro-life" on the basis of evolution. Evolution does not grant that life begins at conception, but at choice. Choice is the determinitive "end" of morality. The individual must choose how he will live his life. Will he obey the laws of his land, as a abiding and peaceful citizen, or will he become a criminal, a renagade? The "pro life" movement says that a person who chooses abortion has "sinned" against God, irregardless of what has been considered lawful according to the Constitution. So, the "Pro-Life Movement" has a "moral demand" over and above the legal requirements of Constitutional government.

Laws are what define moral behavior in a given society. Not every group will adhere to the same standards. But, in a liberal society, choice must be free association of chosen groups that uphold the individuals chosen values. Churches understand "the law" in their doctrines and their standards of behavior that supercede Constitutional government. This helps define the Church over against the Constiutional government..

The conservative church holds to a morality based on deontological ethics, meaning that "God's law" is to be upheld because it is "God's law".  What is considered "good" is what God wills, not good in itself. Humans, then, are ends to "God's will". "Good" is not defined by universal consensus, but by "sacred texts". It is an ethics based "outside of" the individual. It is a moral demand or "oughtness".

On the other hand, virtue and consequential ethics have different values regarding what is good. Virtue ethics, is determined by the individual's character. What is "good" is not an outside form, but an inside agreement as to what is "the good". The virtue ethicist would play out the "inside character" based on whether one believed that there was an objective standard whereby "morality" or "the good" could be judged.

The Church would judge man's character again on an "outside text" or an organizational goal. The individual himself would not be granted moral choice, but demanded to behave according to an approved "standard"! Obedience to that standard of behavior or goal becomes the judgemnt of the individual's character, as to "Christian character". The atheist/agnostic would agree that virtue is within the individual, but would not agree that the standard is determined by "the Church", but on social contract. The individual, himself, must choose his values within a free society, and be allowed to play these out in his life. Character then, is defined by what is "natural" to that particular person.

The social contract forms a society by agreement. The Constitution is the 'standard that the West holds to be of value in maintaining a free society. Constitutional standards are created to protect the society from anarchy or from abuses of power. These are not hierarchal in nature, but are to be "democratic" in intent. Our government is "not sent from above", but granted from below. It is the political sphere where men adhere to the same standards of behavior because this is our cultural value, civilized behavior. Civilized behavior is expected to be ethical, or moral because it regards another's boundary.

Consequentialism would value the end as an ultimate, by whatever means. This position is utilitarian and does not value the human as an ultimate value, but the goal. There are no standards for behavior in this ethical frame. So, while the deontological sees the "moral ought" as ultimate value, isn't this really consequentialist in the Church's view of "ends"? The secular humanist would value the human, not the ends as ultimate value.

God cannot be the ultimate end, because "God" cannot be understood apart from human speculation. And ends, canot be based on what cannot be agreed upon, unless one wants to live under oppressive rule of "Tradition" or Text, as defined by an "outside source".

Virtue of character means that the human being, himself determines his own values and he allows that same liberty to others. The individual chooses to make his life's choices within a free society of free assosiciation, not moral demands of "oughtness". In such a society, there is liberty of conscience, and free debate as to ultimate ends, because each individual chooses his life, as to happiness!

So, I don't value the Church or God as to an end, because the human distinction of choice is dissolved before authoritative demands of obedience of one kind or another. Life must be enjoyed as an offering IF one want to value Chruch or God, at all. Otherwise, life is dissolved of independent value, because life becomes consumed by something "other" or "outside" of life itself. And the individual ceases to "exist" in all practical terms, because he is determined, instead of a Moral Agent.

The I-It in Ethics

Philosophers have had quandaries on what to value and what is of value. Ayn Rand values the individual, and liberty, and capitalism, as a outgrow of that position (at least from what I understand/know now about her philosophy). Her philosophy is called Objectivism. Its morality is based in Ethical Egosim. Self interest is of value in itself, as it is the limiting of collective demands.

Ethical Egoism is in opposition to virtue based ethics, which would value moral obligation or moral duty. And virtue based ethics is based on societal value, as an end, not the indivdiual themself as an end! This means that the individual's life is of no value apart from its utility or function within society. Human rights is based on individual value or personhood. Virtue Ethics is based on  moral examples, heroes, etc. It is not based on self-interest, but individual sacrifice. It is a Jesus as "moral model" example mode of life.

But, just as I would not want to be treated as an "It" or the commodity to meet someone else's "need" or a function of society, as evaluated by some "leader (ship)", I do not think we should treat others as "ITs" or means to our ends, as this devalues individual life, as well!

So, though I don't know much about ethics, per se, ethics was what got me to change my major from sociology to religion/philosophy. And I believe firmly that the individual, his life, and his values are ultimate ends in themself. Just as well, I do not believe that we can live in the world as an "island", without considering "the other" as a person, or society as a value. The other also has  interests, life values, and pursuits. So, I would not want to treat the other "I", as a means, or an "It". Isn't that virtue? It is the basis of the Golden Rule, or the Categorical Imperative, isn't it?

Our government is the best form, as it allows for the indivdual Egoist, as well as the Virtue based ethicist. Our society values the individual, which promotes societal flourishing, as that particular individual pursues their "self-interest". And isn't society about the I-Thou relationship? The social contract agreement of  equal protections under law?

Is the Necessary Element to Good Government Applicable to "God" and Parenting?

In ethics there is a question that is posed about whether something is moral just because God commands it, or because it is objectively moral, irrespective of "God". This is called the "Euthyphro dilemma". Those that believe that "God" is somehow "above the law" are subverting "good judgment. These believe that whatever God demands is a necessary "evil" for his ultimate purposes.

The Divine Command Theory is nothing less than authoritarian governance. It is a demand to obey, without question, because "faith" sanctions such obedience and piety demands it. But is authoritarian government the best form of government? Not unless, one believes that a dictator is the best leader.

Christians will argue that humans cannot see or know the best because they are limited. God is interested in "holiness" or "character", which means, in effect, that one isn't to take ownership of thier own life, but submit in their actions and attitude to whatever "life has divied out", without question, as this is "God's will in Christ Jesus concerning you". Suffering is a means to get the "dross" out of one's life. It is a means to alleviate our lives of our "idols".

Scripture teaches that God is a Father. Does a good father dictate and demand? Or does a father seek to understand, encourage, support, and help the child?

Human rights suggests that individuals are deemed significant and of value in America. We are not a collective society. We believe that good government is limited, and does not intrude into the private lives of its citizens. Americans believe in private property. As James Madison said, ""As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."

-- James Madison, National Gazette essay, March 27, 1792

Good government applies to "God" as well as parenting. Therefore, what is moral is objective, not subject to arbitrary dictates of a "god",  parent or dictator.

Aayan Hirshi Ali and Her Free Thought

I listened to Aayan Hirshi Ali this morning as she accepted an award from the "Freedom From Religion Foundation". She wrote "Infidel", which I read several years ago. She has been a source of inspiration in her fortitude and resistance to religious zeal and her desire to seek rationality instead of religious belonging.

Her speech used "The Emperor With No Clothes" and she talked about how those that want to "belong" at all costs will suppress their questions and unify their opinions because they fear being an "outcast" or "outsider" to the "faith".

This is correct, as humans are prone to decieve themselves and others in their attempt to provide and protect their "community". It  becomes an all out "war" of sorts because one's very identity is caught by such thinking and being in the world. Aayan embraced the questions because she valued honestly above myth. Such questioning  is doubly threatened because it puts one's personal values in question, especially if financial and family investments have a stake in such interests.

Ms. Ali escaped Islam's grasp over her life by fleeing Somalia, becomeing educated in the Netherlands, and finding a "voice in America".

Is she duped by her "reason"? Is she sabatoging another's right to "believe"? What she suggests is that rationality is to be held as a guard against religious fundamentalism, and zeal. It protects from psychological abuse that hinders one from becoming and being in the world as a free moral agent.The individual is to be set free from such "communal understandings". Belonging should be about things that do not depend on irrationality, which leaders have power to enforce at the costs of another's rational conviction and/or commitment.

America is great because it allows for freedom of religion, but doesn't demand religion as a test for public service. Character, which is of uptmost importance in public office is not dependent on one's religious affliation. In fact, religious people, as well as the irreligious, justify what they do by "rational argument". There is no justification to defrauding or manipulating because of a 'higher law" or standard, whether that standard be a religious or secular standard.  America believes that all "belong", as citizens and it is the citizen's right to be treated as equal before the law. And it is called our Constitutional right.

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.

Economically Savy and Religiously Biased Breed a Culture of Mis-Guided "Interests"

Yesterday, I listened to a presentation on economics, and heard about a religious incident. Both concerned me, in where our country is "going".

The first was an economics presentation, defending the "small business model" to free enterprise. The problem for American prosperity, according to this economist, was "Big Business" which has ties to and protection from our legislators. This is where corporate greed and ethical violations conincide, I think.

Legislators take and make backroom deals that benefit their own pockets, as well as embellishing the corporation's interests. The problem is when power subverts "the common person's right" to play in the game of business. The little man, whether a small business owner or innovator of new products cannot compete with those who already have built their reputations, have a monopoly on the market and use it to obstruct justice for the little guy and our country, at large.

The report gave an example of an innovator that had made a syringe that was better than the predominant manufactor. The innovator has been fighting for his right to "buy into" the market, but pockets that are not as deep as corporate interests have a hard road to maintain. Most cannot afford the fight.

Not only does limiting innovative discoveries hinder our own culture, but it also limits American jobs. The large corporations are interested in getting the worker to work for the lowest possible wage, so they go overseas to protect thier profits.

The second concern I have is with American religious tradition, itself. Some religious people had made a "claim for God" about the deaths of homosexuals. Not only was the "message of God" done in the wrong context, but it was presumptuous of them to "speak for God" in the first place. "Who has known the mind of God"?

The cultural wars have been intensified because of absolute claims and fears about God's retribution. These religious people were convinced that God was judging these homonsexuals. It was the view that God intervened directly and individually in the history of men.

What used to be understood to be "God's Providence" has become human agency, such that those that "speak for God" feel they must intervene or "ELSE": judgment will come.

A more rational approach would be to look at human history, the disciplines in general, and understand that there is a 'way" that men have gone and what were the results, how do we understand human beings in thier complexity and what does that say about humans and society and its needs.

Otherwise, our culture is to be doomed with former Great Empires.

Military Rules in Today's Deployment

I have stated before that my husband and I admire the military, because the military believes in ethics. They do not condone fratenization, adultry, or disrespect for authority. The military believes in "team effort" and pursuing the ideals that made our country great. The military is a great tradition to be involved with.

Westpoint's motto, "We don't lie, cheat or steal and don't tolerate those who do", is the motto of character. I value the training that our men and women in uniform submit to, for the sake of liberty. These lay their lives down willingly for the sake of democratic ideals and our national interests.

Today, I was listening to a program on NPR that had a former military commander, a professor of military law from Yale, and others that were talking about he recent General's pronouncement that anyone found to be pregnant during their service under his command in northern Iraq would be court-martialed. It is my understanding that the pronouncement was tempered a bit. But, the lawyer from Yale said that if this pronouncement was challenged in the courts, it would be upheld. The military "owns" you. And with that, a woman called in to say that she was a former military wife whose husband was told by his commander that they owned his body. One of the other officers had gotten sunburned and was disciplined, because no one should be in any condition that subverts their readiness to serve.

I respect the military's commitment to the ideals of our govenrment and their commitment to one another, as team members serving the same goals. This is an environment any business envies and tries to emulate. Productivity is high in this environment, because of the voluntary nature of entrance, one understands and knows what he/she are serving and why.

The military is not respected by some that think that a pacificist stance is more true to the ideals of humanity's interest. But, this commitment is based on an idealized view of man, where man is not prone to the "disease" that free societies call oppression, and the religious term "sin".

The military will always be needed and should always be applauded not because of what they have to do, but what they protect and what they value. These are the ideals that free societies uphold, even by force, if necessary, because otherwise, none of us will be free for long.

Science, as the New Religion

Science has been a "blessing" to man, but just as much a curse. Science has blessed many with technological developments and medical 'miracles" that have brought convenience, and health. But, science today is really a religion.

Religion requires "worship". And worship is a form of submitting one's rationale to an "uncritical" mind-set. I think this is what had happened with the elite scientists that "fudged" on the data concerning global warming.

Science gives man answers that makes men feel comfortable and safe, as if they control their environment. And science has been "useful" in "controlling" society, just as religion was in the past. Anyone who quotes a scientific expert has the ear of the populace. But, what the populace doesn't know, for the most part, is the science itself is diverse, just as religion is.

There are certain formulas that a scientists uses to understand the physical world. But, there are many formulas, or ways of approaching the physical world. And this is what the university does in thier "discussions" about the world in all its aspects.

Man, though is more than his physical being, and this is what scientists seek to understand today. There is much that is left in question, now with the discoveries in neuroscience. How are we to understand man, when neuroscience says that the brain determines many aspects of a person's behavior? Is there to be a "committee" to determine what is to be "proper behavior", so that those that "don't fit" will be "fixed" by medicine? These are very pressing and pertinent questions concerning mankind's future.

What and how do we understand the social science that believed in the past that man was influenced by his enviornment? How much is the brain affected by experience, and how much is experience interpreted by the "form" of the brain? Is mental illness just a brain "dislocation" like an arm that is broken?

The ethical questions are many and profound in their implications. What does religion mean in such a context? Is religion just a "coping mechanism" of the brain to its environment? And how are we to know? Is it ethical to "test" on human subjects by forcing them into environments that would "force" the issue of how the brain adjusts to such "trauma"? Scientists that think such experiements are appropriate think that the benefit far outweighs the "costs" to the "guinea pig".

I fear for our future if scientists have such a view of man, where he is only a "frog" to be dissected. Men are more than "frogs", if one believes in any form of "God". And we know that experiements such as this would be against what the West has always stood for in human rights.

We have much to fear if science becomes a religion!

Value as a Means of Expressing the Incarnation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Reason upholds

Military Pride

Last week, my husband went to a high school fair to represent Westpoint. He is the liason officier for this county.

I went with him and did some grocery shopping. After, he finished, we went to a local resturant to eat dinner. While we were sitting there, our waitress came up along with the manager and a couple of other waiters. They wanted to thank my husband for his years of service in the military and give us a discount on our meal. I was overwhelmed. It actually felt like a "healing". My husband was being appreciated, which was well-deserved. I was taken aback, but should I have been?

Westpoint has an honor code; "We don't lie, cheat or steal and we don't tolerate those who do". That is a code of ethics that stands above the average mean of our society. "Honor, duty, and country" is another standard of military behavior. Military men and women have integrity. They aren't allowed to fratenize and don't bend the rules when it is convienient, because they understand what that might cause to others, as well as the military cause of seeking liberty and justice for all.

I love the miliary for these values and wish they were values that our society held at large.

Our son leaves in a month to join "the cause" and to follow in his father's footsteps. He wants to become a general, so his Dad will have to salute him :)!

I am proud to be a part of the military through my husband's years of commitment and our son's enlistment. There is something healing about hearing someone get the accolades they so deserve.

What Is the Basis of a One World?

What is THE issue to unify the world? What should be of utmost importance? These questions have made the world complicated and complex. There seems to be no resolution or forthcoming "unity" for the "Globe".

The globalists insist that "one world" should be based on economics, as the material is the most important value to uphold. Whereas, the conservative Christian says that Christ is to "hold the world together" in unity. Some have attempted to combine these into a "social gospel" that sees the social problem of poverty as THE issue to be addressed.

Environmentalists insist that we must agree on pollution, as without the earth, none of us will have life, anyway. But the U.N. cannot come to agreement on the environmental requirements, so that the focus can be unified.

Those that believe that human rights are of most importance must agree on what basis is a human right a right. Is this individually determined? Or is it democratically determined? Does government matter when it comes to human rights? I believe it does.

So, government must be of utmost importance in addressing the complexities of today. Without good government, then we are doomed to live in abject slavery to the whims of authoritarianisms whatever they be based upon.

I think our form of government is best, as long as that form is being respected.

Lawyers, Doctors and "Indian Chiefs"

Law defines our American society. Lawyers are powerful people. They create our society by legislation and vision. Lawyers hold the reigns in Congress and many other politically powerful positions.

Lawyers are those that hold others accountable. They bring to trial those that would take advantage or disadvantage another. Doctors find themselves under their power many times when they have acted irresponsibly.

"Indian Chiefs" are those who are promoted by their tribal power. These are identified by their localized "power". Their "power" is still upheld by laws that define their local governments.

The Pharisees in Jesus day had the power of the "Indian Chief". They were allowed the "freedom of religion", but were not as powerful as the leaders of the Rome or the Framers of our Constitution. The "free exercise" of religion was allowed in the Roman Empire, as the Empire found it useful to "use" the religious. The Framers also found religion to be useful, but not pivotal in forming a "more perfect union".

The "Indian Chiefs" formed their apologies for "God" based upon their tribal localities. These were the "communitarians" of our modern nation state.

The Christian "Gospel" was grounded in the "servile mentality" of "second class" citizens. These were the underclasses of society. In the developing tradition, "Paul" created a transcendental reality, where Christians were encouraged to view the material, political and social realms as "suspect". Christians were to "seek after a spiritual or transcentdental "home" or spiritual "salvation" to find their "peace". A separation of reality into the spiritual and the physical began to form.

This has created the basis of our terms, "Sacred and Secular". There is no "secular", unless there is a sacred (as the secular is only understood in the context of a/the sacred). And the sacred is how the "Indian Chiefs" or Pharisees judge "righteousness". Those in Rome, though, are satisfied to get the "Indian Chiefs" to be useful to society's functioning "smoothly".

Paul used his citzenship "rights". But, the "spiritualized" believe that appealing to "worldly" power is not "trusting God". This is absurd and leads to abuse of power.

I have been told "It is not what happens to you, but your response to it that matters". While I agree that obstacles should be challenges to the things we desire to accomplish, some view this as a "pass" on ethical behavior. Ethics should guide and guard the Lawyers amongst us, so that the Doctors and Indian Chiefs can live in Freedom. Freedom from the regulations, technicalities and obscenties of the "law" that seeks to circumvent the true intent of the law, in the first place.

Abortion, Pro-Choice, or Anti-Life

Abortion divides our country down the middle between the conservative and the liberal, or so it seems.

I was glad to hear on the radio today that someone understood that one can value the right of choice, without affirming an "outcome" (abortion).

Abortion is the actual procedure that dissolves the possibility that the woman will have the child. A "D&C" is a medical procedure that "cleans out the uterus" and is used for various medical conditions. It helps the woman to stop bleeding, and is used for other diseases of the uterus.

Pro-choice is the right to choose to abort. This right is the individual right to decide for themselves whether they want or will to have the probability of a child.

Anti-Life is an attitude toward life that denies life, not just its physical existance, but its quality. Life should be about more than quantity.

The conservative views life as given by God. Some believe that God actually "causes" the life to come into being, as a product of his intervention in history and they use Psalm 139 as "proof" of God's view. These believe that God directly directs a "special creation", in the human child. God is a personal God.

Others take a more moderate view of life as a gift, whether directly "caused" or not. These believe that life, even as an evolutionary "product", is the result of a Creative Being. These can be Diests, Intelligent Designers, Theistic evolutionists or agnostics (leaning toward statistical probability).

And still, other believe that life is the product of chance, a mere product of physicality. These people believe that life is valued not because of any innate nature, or divine gifting, but only as the quality and function of life, as human life is no more than any other "life form".

Why is this debate important? I believe it is important not because of one's view of God's intervention in history or how life got here, but how we view human life as "different" from other life forms and the responsibility of government in respecting that difference. It has a lot to do with how the government will decide medical decisions, if our healthcare becomes "universalized".

Even, if our healthcare is not universalized, we must face the fact that we must come to understand some kind of ethical standard and value for human life, so that human life will be protected and valued. These are pivotal decisions that probably will impact us in one way or another through family members, friends, or neighbors.

I believe that the radio talk host was correct in describing a moral imperative to "life", which is choice. Choice must be valued and affirmed in every way possible to maintain a free society and to affirm the value of a "higher life form". Choice is the only difference between human life and any other form of life. We should not be intruding into other's lives and evaluating their decisions. These are personal issues of faith, personal responsiblity and conviction.

Pro-choice does not have to be "anti-life", for if one does not have the freedom to choose, then is life of value? If a life is only carrying out another's "will", whether political (Hitler) or religious (Taliban), then is a particular life "owned"or valued by its owner, as well as the larger society? Self responsiblity for one's choices, is the first freedom that a free society should guarantee its citizens.

And because life is valued for its quality and not its quantity, Americans "fight" for freedom.

What in the World?

This morning it was reported that there is a crackdown in China against the Muslims. Riots were shown on TV. Yesterday, in Church it was reported that an island off the coast of India is persecuting the Christian population, which is 1%. Just recently, Korea shot missiles to show the world their power. What in the world is happening?

I think that the nationalizing of our healthcare is a power grab as well. Some of our companies cease to be privately owned and the government has gotten involved in mortagages for the poor.
A.C.O.R.N. is not being investigates, as John Connally, head of the Judiacary Committee reports that he was stopped. BY WHO AND WHY? Americorps and World Vision has been caught in power grabs. There seems to be no end to the way that power is exerting itself against the "common person". Privitization is being dismissed as selfishness. But, is it?

One of our Founders warned that when government starts stealing, undermining or federalizing the Treasury, then we will become slaves! Is this to be our future?

It seems that since many in the American population have been squeezed because of the recent economic downturn. Those who have lived off credit, live in expensive areas, or lived for money and power are dismayed. Some have given up hope altogether and committed in ultimate hopeless act of taking their own life.

Is such hopelessness causing us to feel helpless, so that we will not care anymore about our government and what the Founders set in motion to protect private property? Liberty of conscience, the private and the publice, the Church and State were set at "odds" to one another for a reason. It was the allowance of individual freedoms and rights. Today we hear of 'public interests", the "public or common good". Where are private interests? Where are human rights?

The ethical can never dissolve the individual without undermining liberty altogether. Is the government "stealing our lives", so that we become enslaved to government's power to "help". We have no other resource. We will be a people of entitled dependence!

I am truly disturbed. I am grateful for a few brave voices that hold government accountable. But, we should all be doing whatever we can to prevent government's corruption throught absolutizing government power.

I am afraid that when the American people suffer, they are too caught up with their own personal pain to be concerned about the real public interest and public good.

Addictions and Discussion in Yesterday's Class

Yesterday, I covered my husband's class on "Faith and Society Integration". It is a class on the science/religion interface. I have used the opportunity to focus more on policy and ethics, than on the scientific aspects.

One of the students had prepared and presented a paper on Cocaine addiction and shared in class about the changes in the brain that happened along with addiction. Understanding the strength of addiction and drugs in general, we got onto the topic of marijuana and its legalization.

This student said that the AMA had argued since the '20's for legalization of marijuna for medicinal purposes. And that legalization should happen not just for that reason alone, but also for the greater good of society. He argued that our borders which are now being bombarded by drug lords would decrease, as legalization would undermine their profiteering. And it just might hinder those who seek marajuna to become enamoured with harder more addictive drugs.

All of this led into a discussion about where, how and what determines what we legalize, and what we label as "sin". Who determines what is to be a legitimate value in a culture, etc. It was an interesting discussion, that I hope (and think) the students enjoyed as much as I did (at leas I hope so)!

Problems for the West

The West has developed their own "selfhood", but some think that this is at the expense of society and the larger world, as we are individualists. So, in seeking for equality in a limited world, many have sought to develop policy on the environment, or natural resources or, become concerned over poverty around the world. While the envioronment and natural resources, as well as poverty are all "noble causes", they are limited in focus, policy driven by environmental issues or poverty alone will subvert other interests. All interests are of concern in the West, as we are a diverse people.

Science is innovative and therefore, the West has recourse to environmental limitations. And some have become involved in seeking to alleviate poverty by helping with sustenance relief. But, while the environment and poverty are some of the driving forces of public policy today, we, in the West, cannot deny, or ignore the political dangers that exist in the world. Dismissing danger to our sovereign right to exist and hold our own cultural values, will undermine all of the civility in the world. Radical faith is the driving force behind terrorism, and fundamentalism that undermind rational and reasonable government.

Government that determines it's foreign policy on "peace", when these ideological religions exist, is only living in "fantasy land". Peace is not what radicals seek. They seek the universalization of their understanding and their world at all costs. And it does not matter how they undermine or subvert another's "world". Their voice and understanding is The "lone voice".

While the radicalized religious zealot is one political danger, science can also be a dangerous terrain for public behavior. Genetic engineering, while giving much promise and hope to mankind, has not had any type of guidance as to any limitation upon its power to make change in society. Bio-ethics is an important issue to be addressed, as without these limitations to scientific discovery, we are headed into a Brave New World, where it will be the intellectual elite that determine public policy, limiting the average citizen their right of "voice".

How does the West live with those who do not believe in universal human rights? much less woman's rights? or individual rights apart from societial function? How do we, as "free people" allow a different culture that has different political implications. Who murder their "sinners"? Or determine the outcomes?

We cannot be blind, or naive'. Our security needs to be of first and upmost importance, so that we can maintain rationale for universal human rights and the free society that we have always enjoyed. Religion should not be politicized. The public sphere, though influenced by religion, as the religious are representative of a group, cannot be the only group to determine policy without a counter-balance of weighing difference.

And the scientific discoveries of the West with all of the possibilities, cannot drive policy without discretion and humility. Science is good, but should only be used in the right way and the discussion about what that "right way" is should involve all of us.