We in America "fight" over social justice, as social justice guaruntees what some deem to be "bigger government" and an undermining of self responsibility. Is Democracy to undermine distributive justice? Or does distributive justice undermine democracy? These are questions that have puzzled many and continue to be at the forefront of our "culture wars".
Christians that believe in a literalizing of the Judeo-Christian Scripture believe in upholding distributive justice, as do Democrats. Distributive justice guaruntees education, healthcare, and minimun income. Social justice should be underwritten by "good government".
While these believe in government guarunteeing these rights, others think that civil and political rights should be enough to guaruntee human flourishing. Government should not intervene in the affairs of men, but should only protect civil and political liberties. The individual should govern himself and create a place for himself without government support.But, what is the responsibility of the government toward the young or those who cannot create the "good life" for themselves?
Public education is upheld as a right by most Americans, but lately the homeschool movement has gained ground in education. Parents believe it is their right and duty to educate their young. These homeschooling families believe that government would provide for a secularized education that they find appalling. Do these parents have a right to educate their children? Or does the State have a duty to see that the child recieves a full education, either through mandating what qualifies a parent to educate their child, or through limiting homeschooling altogether. These are issues that breed "culture wars".
Our nation is a religious nation, although we believe in religious freedom, therefore, mandating anything at the federal level is a "red flag" to an American. States in America have the right to legislate how homeschoolers will function, and what requirements will be demanded, if any.
On the heels of homeschooling is the issue of Scripture and the belief of "Creation" and the evolution debate. Evolution has been approved by the eduational community as a value that must be taught in our public schools. But, what of the homeschoolers? Are they to be under this legislation? Does government have a right to protect the education of its young? Or does government have a duty to protect the right of the parent and their duties toward their child?
The conflict over our Greek democratic ideals, and the Jewish/Christian understanding of justice is at issue. Do we limit individual rights or do we limit individual freedoms? Do we believe in freedom of religion, and at what costs, especially in the climate of radicals? Or do we discriminate against religious convictions and on what basis do we determine when to discriminate? Surely, we wouldn't want to discriminate altogether, would we?
The issue of Church and State has been a long and difficult one, but it is the basis of our democratic process and what forms our society's value of diversity. We just don't know where the unity lies...
Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts
Friday, November 6, 2009
Law MUST Protect Rights (Freedom)
We are a nation of law (and order). And because we value law, we are an ordered or civilized society. What happens to society when laws are disregarded, or abused?
Man is a rational animal and rationality is developed by understanding rights before the law and coming to terms with one's ultimate values. Every human deserves the right to have a sense of freedom about their life, so that they can take responsibility for themselves. This is a basic human right.
Governments and people who do not value laws that protect rights are disrepectful of another's life. Motivation and human flourishing does not occur as freely and frequently in oppressive regimes, which affects society itself. Humans must be free to choose where their responsibilities will be and where their ultimate values and commitments lie.
Religious dictators would subvert another's choice through "God's will", or "God's Purpose", while political dictators subvert another's choices through subversion of rights under law.
We should value our freedom and undestand our rights as granted by laws and protected by our "Representative Republic".
Man is a rational animal and rationality is developed by understanding rights before the law and coming to terms with one's ultimate values. Every human deserves the right to have a sense of freedom about their life, so that they can take responsibility for themselves. This is a basic human right.
Governments and people who do not value laws that protect rights are disrepectful of another's life. Motivation and human flourishing does not occur as freely and frequently in oppressive regimes, which affects society itself. Humans must be free to choose where their responsibilities will be and where their ultimate values and commitments lie.
Religious dictators would subvert another's choice through "God's will", or "God's Purpose", while political dictators subvert another's choices through subversion of rights under law.
We should value our freedom and undestand our rights as granted by laws and protected by our "Representative Republic".
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Why the Jews?
Sunday I was listening to a classical piece that reminds me of the Jewish plight under the Nazis. Why has the West identified with the Jews?
The Jews have become symbolic to our identity. Our identity is rooted in freedom under law. We, in America, are a people because we believe in freedoms of all kinds. We are not a people identified with a religion, a monarch, or an ideology. This leaves the individual at liberty to choose his own way of life, as long as it does not interfere with the laws that provide for our security. Our solidarity is only based on these freedoms and Americans don't have a strong "cultural identity" unless freedom is challenged.
Myths have been useful for identification. Stories are told to children and children identify with the hero or herorine in the story. They dream of rescue, dreams and hopes coming true. These are basic to the human heart.
In America, we have benefited by these basic human desires of "becoming all we can". Hollywood is known worldwide to transmit these cultural values.
The "Jews" are symbolic for all human rights and many Jews today are humanists because of their story of struggle to attain what the human heart has always longed for, Freedom.
The Jews have become symbolic to our identity. Our identity is rooted in freedom under law. We, in America, are a people because we believe in freedoms of all kinds. We are not a people identified with a religion, a monarch, or an ideology. This leaves the individual at liberty to choose his own way of life, as long as it does not interfere with the laws that provide for our security. Our solidarity is only based on these freedoms and Americans don't have a strong "cultural identity" unless freedom is challenged.
Myths have been useful for identification. Stories are told to children and children identify with the hero or herorine in the story. They dream of rescue, dreams and hopes coming true. These are basic to the human heart.
In America, we have benefited by these basic human desires of "becoming all we can". Hollywood is known worldwide to transmit these cultural values.
The "Jews" are symbolic for all human rights and many Jews today are humanists because of their story of struggle to attain what the human heart has always longed for, Freedom.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Men Were and Men Are
Men were created to be free. This was man's natural state. But, man was not satisfied to be free. He must organize and structure his environment to best suit himself, to dominate others, nature and his social environment.
Men are now doomed to government's demands, and limitations upon choice. Men are doomed to serve instead of dominate. This and is the state of slaves under tyrants, dictators, Kings, "gods", systems, governments, laws, and nature, herself. Men are limited by such things.
So, man's need to dominate was his very enslavement. He organizes only to serve himself. He structures to form his understanding, so he can control others. And, so, all men are now enslaved.
Men are now doomed to government's demands, and limitations upon choice. Men are doomed to serve instead of dominate. This and is the state of slaves under tyrants, dictators, Kings, "gods", systems, governments, laws, and nature, herself. Men are limited by such things.
So, man's need to dominate was his very enslavement. He organizes only to serve himself. He structures to form his understanding, so he can control others. And, so, all men are now enslaved.
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.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
OOPS! FREEDOM is NOT FIRST
In my last post, I made a statement that our Founders wanted to based our country first and foremost on freedom. This is partly wrong, I think. While freedom is the result of our Constitutional government, the Founders wanted to base our country on the 'rule of law' and not arbitrary authority or power. This is an important distinction, as without law, a government cannot be ordered.
"Ordered Liberty" is our Founders' "frame". We should be so thankful!!!
"Ordered Liberty" is our Founders' "frame". We should be so thankful!!!
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Individual Choice, Social Contract, and Freedom
Our individualism in America has its roots in Protestantism. Protestantism is a "protest" against the Church and its abuses of power. But, the Protestant Church found itself split again and again over questions about the sacraments and Church government. Church government was understood to maintain the social structure of the "elect", in however that was understood. America, on the other hand, was born to undermine "election" and give room and voice to each and every citizen.
America was founded on principles of the Enlightenment; reason, natural law, and an understanding of "moral principles" that guided civil society, which was the basis of the "rule of law". The Founders were not evangelical believers, but men of reason, who desired to create a "more perfect union" that gave the individual a voice about their life and their pursuits.
While America's tradition was undeveloped and never gained the traditional strength of traditional cultures, it did have "order" and structure that was based on equality of opportunity, which underwrote justice and liberty. The limited government that the Founders created was to "value individual" rights, while forbidding the sanction of any one religious tradition.
Their understanding was that government was to protect the people by providing a military and maintaining order by balancing power between the states. Centralization was debated by Hamilton (?), but not all of the Founders understood the government's power in such a way. Centralization became more prevalent when socialized programs started to provide and over-rode the individual and State's right to liberty. The social contract became underwritten by the government, instead of the government respecting the 'other party' in the contract.
I think that this is the very "pivot point" to our understanding what is happening with globalization and nationalism today. Where the State had the right to "hold property" which were the slaves that helped maintain economic stability in the South, government's moral "voice" determined through war that slavery was universally wrong. Human rights and "nationalism" were born.
Modernity is based on man's reason, which is developed within certain paradigms. It is not usual, except in free societies and liberal families that people are exposed to "more than one way of understanding life". Worldviews, which are reasonable explainations about life and how reality functions are ways in which people identify. But, reason is not the epitome of reality, although it is useful for living in constructing "a more perfect answer" for faith.
I think that without freedom, individual choice, and social contract, the world is a dark and forboding place that subverts justice, limits freedom devalues the human. I don't choose to live in such a world and most people who have a choice (and know that they have a choice) would not either.
America was founded on principles of the Enlightenment; reason, natural law, and an understanding of "moral principles" that guided civil society, which was the basis of the "rule of law". The Founders were not evangelical believers, but men of reason, who desired to create a "more perfect union" that gave the individual a voice about their life and their pursuits.
While America's tradition was undeveloped and never gained the traditional strength of traditional cultures, it did have "order" and structure that was based on equality of opportunity, which underwrote justice and liberty. The limited government that the Founders created was to "value individual" rights, while forbidding the sanction of any one religious tradition.
Their understanding was that government was to protect the people by providing a military and maintaining order by balancing power between the states. Centralization was debated by Hamilton (?), but not all of the Founders understood the government's power in such a way. Centralization became more prevalent when socialized programs started to provide and over-rode the individual and State's right to liberty. The social contract became underwritten by the government, instead of the government respecting the 'other party' in the contract.
I think that this is the very "pivot point" to our understanding what is happening with globalization and nationalism today. Where the State had the right to "hold property" which were the slaves that helped maintain economic stability in the South, government's moral "voice" determined through war that slavery was universally wrong. Human rights and "nationalism" were born.
Modernity is based on man's reason, which is developed within certain paradigms. It is not usual, except in free societies and liberal families that people are exposed to "more than one way of understanding life". Worldviews, which are reasonable explainations about life and how reality functions are ways in which people identify. But, reason is not the epitome of reality, although it is useful for living in constructing "a more perfect answer" for faith.
I think that without freedom, individual choice, and social contract, the world is a dark and forboding place that subverts justice, limits freedom devalues the human. I don't choose to live in such a world and most people who have a choice (and know that they have a choice) would not either.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Politics, Ideology, and the Nation State
I have real concerns about some of Obama's actions recently. I have mentioned how he has treated our allies, but how he has treated our enemies baffles me. Perhaps, he is trying to befriend these enemies, so that the multi-cultural postmodern mind-set will win the policy debate. He has said that we should use diplomacy and not military might.
But, I think this has real implications about how one understands the world and its future. I don't doubt that we must engage across boundaries, nationally, as these have already dissolved because of economic necessity. Maybe this was misguided, as now we must "do" policy around economics, insteads of economics around policy. (This was America's "sin" and the cause of much of our heartache financially today.)
We are one world economically, but we are vastly different polictically and culturally. This is what is dividing people. If we give credibility to those who deny the Holocost, then we are denying reality, for multicultural "opinion". And we are doing a disservice to the nation-state and the ideals that our country stands as it concerns individual rights.
Obama has sent a video to Iran, wined and dined with Venezula's dictator, Chavez, and opened up Cuba. Perhaps, if earning "respect" by giving "respect" is the way to "enter the country" and bring about change toward democratic governance, then his vision would be rightly discerned. But, isn't he taking a chance in "trusting" the dictators, their media propaganda machine, and actually discriminating against our long-time allies? I think he is acting naively. Just recently a journalist was taken and tried in Iran and is to serve time in their prison, as she spied. This is reality, not a naive "hope" for peace.
The U.N. is being banned by some groups because human rights is about the ideal of the individual, not cultural rights, or ideals, unless, it is about our nation's ideals of "life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness". If tradition is not honored by Obama at home, like when he covered the crosses at Georgtown University, and yet, he wants to honor the discriminated "tradition" of Islam, or the persecuted "class" of Hamas, while dismissing our allies, as allies (militarily defined) then we are headed for some turbulant times.
Postmodernism is multiculturalism, perspectivism, relativism, etc. It is context oriented. But, context cannot determine policy when it comes to a nation, and this is what disturbs me, as Obama wants to change the very foundations of our government, giving all equal opportunity, while not discerning of or discriminating about accountability.
Although our nation has "done damage" abroad, we have also done much that is good. Why should we apologize over who we are, as Obama is continually doing when travelling abroad. I recognize that we have been seeking the financial benefit of our nation's interest, but all nations seek to do this. Why are we apologizing for our existence? Of course, there will be many that are jealous over our freedom, and "prosperity", that is human nature. But, alleviating envy by dissolving all of our assets does nothing to address the problem of envy in the hearts of other countries.
We have sought to bring freedom to individuals and nations. And while the means of bringing freedom have not been perfect, nothing in this world is perfect, and life is more valued as free than as enslaved by any system or form of government. So, we should continue to be proud of our nation and our military. And we should definately not be apologizing, especially to those who do not value life and freedom!
But, I think this has real implications about how one understands the world and its future. I don't doubt that we must engage across boundaries, nationally, as these have already dissolved because of economic necessity. Maybe this was misguided, as now we must "do" policy around economics, insteads of economics around policy. (This was America's "sin" and the cause of much of our heartache financially today.)
We are one world economically, but we are vastly different polictically and culturally. This is what is dividing people. If we give credibility to those who deny the Holocost, then we are denying reality, for multicultural "opinion". And we are doing a disservice to the nation-state and the ideals that our country stands as it concerns individual rights.
Obama has sent a video to Iran, wined and dined with Venezula's dictator, Chavez, and opened up Cuba. Perhaps, if earning "respect" by giving "respect" is the way to "enter the country" and bring about change toward democratic governance, then his vision would be rightly discerned. But, isn't he taking a chance in "trusting" the dictators, their media propaganda machine, and actually discriminating against our long-time allies? I think he is acting naively. Just recently a journalist was taken and tried in Iran and is to serve time in their prison, as she spied. This is reality, not a naive "hope" for peace.
The U.N. is being banned by some groups because human rights is about the ideal of the individual, not cultural rights, or ideals, unless, it is about our nation's ideals of "life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness". If tradition is not honored by Obama at home, like when he covered the crosses at Georgtown University, and yet, he wants to honor the discriminated "tradition" of Islam, or the persecuted "class" of Hamas, while dismissing our allies, as allies (militarily defined) then we are headed for some turbulant times.
Postmodernism is multiculturalism, perspectivism, relativism, etc. It is context oriented. But, context cannot determine policy when it comes to a nation, and this is what disturbs me, as Obama wants to change the very foundations of our government, giving all equal opportunity, while not discerning of or discriminating about accountability.
Although our nation has "done damage" abroad, we have also done much that is good. Why should we apologize over who we are, as Obama is continually doing when travelling abroad. I recognize that we have been seeking the financial benefit of our nation's interest, but all nations seek to do this. Why are we apologizing for our existence? Of course, there will be many that are jealous over our freedom, and "prosperity", that is human nature. But, alleviating envy by dissolving all of our assets does nothing to address the problem of envy in the hearts of other countries.
We have sought to bring freedom to individuals and nations. And while the means of bringing freedom have not been perfect, nothing in this world is perfect, and life is more valued as free than as enslaved by any system or form of government. So, we should continue to be proud of our nation and our military. And we should definately not be apologizing, especially to those who do not value life and freedom!
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Nationalism, Globalism, and "Tea Parties"
Yesterday, Obama said that he wanted to build our Nation on the "rock". He used scripture, appealing to the religious conservative. While no one disagrees that our Nation has to be built upon a "rock", most conservatives agree that the "rock" is the Constitution. Others find that our globalized world calls for us to "lay down our own interests", so that "the greater good" can be furthered.
Government in conservative eyes, should be to represent the people, private interests, private business and free enterprise, in general. But, with the "bail-outs" and budget over-spending, the conservative feels that government has overstepped its boundary. Government should be limited, so that there is personal freedom.
Today, Obama said that we needed to pay our taxes so that government could pay their bills. Joe Biden said during the campaign that "to pay taxes was to be patriotic". No, when the people pay taxes, so that government can pay their bills, while there is outrageous debt and, yet, government does not limit themselves in their spending, then there is moral outrage. Why? because the people support government, instead of government protecting the people! This is socialism! The common good, the public interests, the higher purpose, etc. all are synonyms for government's justification of "doing good" for us. We, the people, cannot do good ourselves, we are dependent on the government to determine and distribute what, when and where. We, the people, loose our power and control over our lives, not just our money!
What do Americans do? We throw 'tea parties". I just heard today that one lady called her U.S. senator to be told that he and the staff would not be able to participate in the local "tea party" because "tea parties" are a protest against government and since he and staff are government employees, then they are forbidden to go. Who says that on one's own personal time, one cannot participate in any activity that is legal? Is it ia conflict of interests? Has the federal government "laid down the law" that this is not a freedom that any government official is allowed? Does government "control" their employees political convictions and opinions? Is this why we have not heard from Republicans? One just wonders.....
The issue is really a complex one, as it is about national vs. international interests. This is like the old argument of individual vs. societal "rights"...where and how do we determine what to do when globalization is upon us. We have no choice. We do have to address it!
Just today I read where the U. N. had had "problems" with contracting out their interests. Humanitarian aid is a money making business, no matter what anyone says. America has limited her power at the U.N. to regard other "dictatorships". America should not give up her understanding of "right" for any "common purposes" of globalization. And, yet, I know we cannot live without our neighbors. This is what disturbs me about how Obama has repected the Arab nations (bowing) without continuing to honor the 'free world" in his behavior.
On one hand, SOS Clinton did agree to limit the "rights" of the pirates, but was this due to America's interests or humanitarian aid. Would there have been the same or similar opinions if it had been a military expedition?
I don't think that destroying our Nation or the "free world" for the interests of globalization is very wise. We have valid interests to protect and we must not let our freedoms slide into the nebulous, undefined "whole" of globalism.
Government in conservative eyes, should be to represent the people, private interests, private business and free enterprise, in general. But, with the "bail-outs" and budget over-spending, the conservative feels that government has overstepped its boundary. Government should be limited, so that there is personal freedom.
Today, Obama said that we needed to pay our taxes so that government could pay their bills. Joe Biden said during the campaign that "to pay taxes was to be patriotic". No, when the people pay taxes, so that government can pay their bills, while there is outrageous debt and, yet, government does not limit themselves in their spending, then there is moral outrage. Why? because the people support government, instead of government protecting the people! This is socialism! The common good, the public interests, the higher purpose, etc. all are synonyms for government's justification of "doing good" for us. We, the people, cannot do good ourselves, we are dependent on the government to determine and distribute what, when and where. We, the people, loose our power and control over our lives, not just our money!
What do Americans do? We throw 'tea parties". I just heard today that one lady called her U.S. senator to be told that he and the staff would not be able to participate in the local "tea party" because "tea parties" are a protest against government and since he and staff are government employees, then they are forbidden to go. Who says that on one's own personal time, one cannot participate in any activity that is legal? Is it ia conflict of interests? Has the federal government "laid down the law" that this is not a freedom that any government official is allowed? Does government "control" their employees political convictions and opinions? Is this why we have not heard from Republicans? One just wonders.....
The issue is really a complex one, as it is about national vs. international interests. This is like the old argument of individual vs. societal "rights"...where and how do we determine what to do when globalization is upon us. We have no choice. We do have to address it!
Just today I read where the U. N. had had "problems" with contracting out their interests. Humanitarian aid is a money making business, no matter what anyone says. America has limited her power at the U.N. to regard other "dictatorships". America should not give up her understanding of "right" for any "common purposes" of globalization. And, yet, I know we cannot live without our neighbors. This is what disturbs me about how Obama has repected the Arab nations (bowing) without continuing to honor the 'free world" in his behavior.
On one hand, SOS Clinton did agree to limit the "rights" of the pirates, but was this due to America's interests or humanitarian aid. Would there have been the same or similar opinions if it had been a military expedition?
I don't think that destroying our Nation or the "free world" for the interests of globalization is very wise. We have valid interests to protect and we must not let our freedoms slide into the nebulous, undefined "whole" of globalism.
Piracy and Human Rights
Lately, there has been much discussion about piracy. The threat that is posed toward Americans, who are seeking to provide humanitarian aid poses a threat to 'freedom" and "human rights".
I was glad to hear that Sec. Clinton was going to take measures against such people. These people pose a threat to all of us, if left unchecked. Even though some have sought 'rights" for these pirates in the name of "humanity", it is obvious that they could care less about anyone else's right to their "freedom".
Humans like to control, as this gives us a sense of power. Control is not a bad thing, as without it, we cannot be moral agents, nor can we be self-governing. But, whenever control intrudes into another's territory, then we have hindered "freedom and justice" for the other. This is what our Founding Fathers desired for everyone, equal opportunity, fairness, and equal treatment. There is no sense of "peace' without the "rule of law".
Without the rule of law, we are only animals, not human. Human means that we respect the other's rights of difference. Without difference, there is not freedom.
I was glad to hear that Sec. Clinton was going to take measures against such people. These people pose a threat to all of us, if left unchecked. Even though some have sought 'rights" for these pirates in the name of "humanity", it is obvious that they could care less about anyone else's right to their "freedom".
Humans like to control, as this gives us a sense of power. Control is not a bad thing, as without it, we cannot be moral agents, nor can we be self-governing. But, whenever control intrudes into another's territory, then we have hindered "freedom and justice" for the other. This is what our Founding Fathers desired for everyone, equal opportunity, fairness, and equal treatment. There is no sense of "peace' without the "rule of law".
Without the rule of law, we are only animals, not human. Human means that we respect the other's rights of difference. Without difference, there is not freedom.
Monday, April 13, 2009
An Interesting Experience This Morning....on Defining Values
This morning, as usual, I picked up the newspaper. There was an article about the 'new dog" at the White House, which is a water spaniel.
Since I am a dog lover, I read the whole article and found out that Sen. Ted Kennedy had given the dog as a gift to the first family. My heart was warmed. I found myself wondering why this meant so much to me fascinating. Probably, any of you reading this, will wonder what I was so fascinated about...
Well, I have certain political opinions, and find that some of the convictions that are held by our public servants to be undermining of our nation's interest, not to mention some of their character flaws. While this is the case, I found myself really appreciating the humane-ness of this kindness of Sen. Kennedy. And I found myself telling my husband how much I appreicated our public servants. There was a certain "respect' of the office that represents our nation, which I am fully committed to.
I have often heard about and have "obeyed" the conviction of "honoring the position" and not the person, sort of "command stance" toward authority. But, I found my attitude this morning surprised me.
As I reflected on this today, it became evident that I respect all of the values that our nation represents. And this is why the military give their lives for our nation. I guess, I am convinced that what we value most, we will uphold by our life commitment. I think that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is pretty "universal"....liberty and justice for all and these values are ones that demand our commitment.
Since I am a dog lover, I read the whole article and found out that Sen. Ted Kennedy had given the dog as a gift to the first family. My heart was warmed. I found myself wondering why this meant so much to me fascinating. Probably, any of you reading this, will wonder what I was so fascinated about...
Well, I have certain political opinions, and find that some of the convictions that are held by our public servants to be undermining of our nation's interest, not to mention some of their character flaws. While this is the case, I found myself really appreciating the humane-ness of this kindness of Sen. Kennedy. And I found myself telling my husband how much I appreicated our public servants. There was a certain "respect' of the office that represents our nation, which I am fully committed to.
I have often heard about and have "obeyed" the conviction of "honoring the position" and not the person, sort of "command stance" toward authority. But, I found my attitude this morning surprised me.
As I reflected on this today, it became evident that I respect all of the values that our nation represents. And this is why the military give their lives for our nation. I guess, I am convinced that what we value most, we will uphold by our life commitment. I think that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is pretty "universal"....liberty and justice for all and these values are ones that demand our commitment.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Rights, the Press, and Reform or Revolution?
Government, whether national, parochial, or familial is instituted as a means of protection. Government is an ordering and structuring of society for the "common good'. Good government does not oppress, but gives a frame to live a "peaceful" life. Scriptures commend us to pray for government, so that our lives may be peaceful. But, what of reform or revolution, then?
Traditional "biblical" Christians are taught to submit, as 'this is the will of God in Christ Jesus, concerning you". This scripture is written with the assumption that "god controls" the events of life. This view is not affriming of what science knows to be true about time, the cosmos, and systems. Therefore, "biblical Christianity" does not exist, except in one's head. Personally, I find telling someone a "myth" to soothe their suffering, or soothe their conscience, is being dishonest.
But, theology has sought to bring about "hope" to give a reason in difficult situations or times. These theological "musings" are offensive, and can be horrendously oppressive.
The political realm is where "life happens". Politics drives policy, but ideas are what drive politics. The philosophical arguments about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is really where the battle should be waged.
Every human has life, but all do not have quality or liberty of life, much less the political freedom to pursue happiness. These are the practical issues that policy seeks to address on a global scale, but how? Liberty is not won except by exposing the costs of tyranny.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a political dissident for the U.S.S.R., in the March 15, 1976 article in U.S. News and World Report, said:
"Tyrants, bandits, puppets have come to power and pragmatice philosophy says: That
doesn't matter, we have to recognize them. And what is more, one should not consider
that the great principles of freedom finish at your own frontiers, that as long as you
have freedom, let the rest have pragmatism. No. Freedom is indivisible, and one has to
take a moral attitude toward it" (pg. 23).
The human heart is meant for freedom, and good government should allow freedom to the individual to pursue his own ends. Tyrannical governments have used many means to oppress; bad laws, no law, and God.
"All men are created equal with certain inalienable rights", "with liberty and justice for all", these are quotes that any American knows, and I hope, values. The principle is the value of the individual and the freedom that justice provides. No one should suffer under the hands of bad government, but most in this world, do. Americans do not live with fear of government interference in their private lives nor do we fear government paranoia, where government intrusively invades our physical space to demand an accounting.
Americans became a "people" because of the belief that none should be diminished or repressed. The cry of the Revolution was "no taxation without Representation". A Representative Republic "ideally" holds the leaders accountable to the people, not the people to the government. And the accountbility of the leader to the people they represent is the "vote".
In our free society, we are to give feedback to our representatives, as our voice is to be valued. If leaders are blind to the needs, values, suggestions of their people, then they have ceased to represent, and have become figure-heads or bandits of our treasury.
Free societies are only as free as the press. The press has great power in giving information to the people in our free society, but if the information is skewed, or suppressed, then the press is undermining our freedom, not just of the pertinent information, but our society as a whole. Again, let me quote Solzhenitsyn:
"The most important aspect of detente today is that there is not ideological detente. You
Western people simply can't grasp the power of Soviet propaganda."
Without free information, people are at the mercy of their rulers. I heard on a radio program yesterday, that some in our press are informed from the White House about news coverage. How one writes about the news can impact and influence public opinion. This adminstration obviously knows that without the press as a powerful weapon of reforming and revolutionizing our nation's values, "change" will not occur. Our society is to be an open and free one, but secret letters written by the President about national affairs, without accountability to Congress or the people, is acting without representing. The same independence of attitude was "applied" at Guantanamo Bay.
Government is a gift, but must be valued by responsible behavior. Leaders should be accountable, and the people fully informed. Otherwise, we are headed for the tyranny that Solzhenitsyn warned about. Americans must not allow that.
Traditional "biblical" Christians are taught to submit, as 'this is the will of God in Christ Jesus, concerning you". This scripture is written with the assumption that "god controls" the events of life. This view is not affriming of what science knows to be true about time, the cosmos, and systems. Therefore, "biblical Christianity" does not exist, except in one's head. Personally, I find telling someone a "myth" to soothe their suffering, or soothe their conscience, is being dishonest.
But, theology has sought to bring about "hope" to give a reason in difficult situations or times. These theological "musings" are offensive, and can be horrendously oppressive.
The political realm is where "life happens". Politics drives policy, but ideas are what drive politics. The philosophical arguments about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is really where the battle should be waged.
Every human has life, but all do not have quality or liberty of life, much less the political freedom to pursue happiness. These are the practical issues that policy seeks to address on a global scale, but how? Liberty is not won except by exposing the costs of tyranny.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a political dissident for the U.S.S.R., in the March 15, 1976 article in U.S. News and World Report, said:
"Tyrants, bandits, puppets have come to power and pragmatice philosophy says: That
doesn't matter, we have to recognize them. And what is more, one should not consider
that the great principles of freedom finish at your own frontiers, that as long as you
have freedom, let the rest have pragmatism. No. Freedom is indivisible, and one has to
take a moral attitude toward it" (pg. 23).
The human heart is meant for freedom, and good government should allow freedom to the individual to pursue his own ends. Tyrannical governments have used many means to oppress; bad laws, no law, and God.
"All men are created equal with certain inalienable rights", "with liberty and justice for all", these are quotes that any American knows, and I hope, values. The principle is the value of the individual and the freedom that justice provides. No one should suffer under the hands of bad government, but most in this world, do. Americans do not live with fear of government interference in their private lives nor do we fear government paranoia, where government intrusively invades our physical space to demand an accounting.
Americans became a "people" because of the belief that none should be diminished or repressed. The cry of the Revolution was "no taxation without Representation". A Representative Republic "ideally" holds the leaders accountable to the people, not the people to the government. And the accountbility of the leader to the people they represent is the "vote".
In our free society, we are to give feedback to our representatives, as our voice is to be valued. If leaders are blind to the needs, values, suggestions of their people, then they have ceased to represent, and have become figure-heads or bandits of our treasury.
Free societies are only as free as the press. The press has great power in giving information to the people in our free society, but if the information is skewed, or suppressed, then the press is undermining our freedom, not just of the pertinent information, but our society as a whole. Again, let me quote Solzhenitsyn:
"The most important aspect of detente today is that there is not ideological detente. You
Western people simply can't grasp the power of Soviet propaganda."
Without free information, people are at the mercy of their rulers. I heard on a radio program yesterday, that some in our press are informed from the White House about news coverage. How one writes about the news can impact and influence public opinion. This adminstration obviously knows that without the press as a powerful weapon of reforming and revolutionizing our nation's values, "change" will not occur. Our society is to be an open and free one, but secret letters written by the President about national affairs, without accountability to Congress or the people, is acting without representing. The same independence of attitude was "applied" at Guantanamo Bay.
Government is a gift, but must be valued by responsible behavior. Leaders should be accountable, and the people fully informed. Otherwise, we are headed for the tyranny that Solzhenitsyn warned about. Americans must not allow that.
Friday, February 27, 2009
What I Have Come to Believe About Love.
I really think that most of my life I have been a "romantic". Romanticism is a child-like belief in "love". Love conquers all. All the world needs now is "love sweet love". Love will make everything all right. If one just learns to love enough, then others will love in return. These are childish imaginings, built on a childish hope for "peace and goodwill to all men"..l
I have come to understand that "love" is not the exchange rate of life in this world and humans don't Love unless they know. Love is a personal word, unlike justice.
Justice is an aspect of love that seeks equality under law, respect, dignity, and value to all people. Justice is blind to difference, because difference in race, religion or "creed of life" are not evaluated in "justice's eyes". Justice is what anyone seeks for "self" and what we need to seek for others. But, justice is measured by law, as laws define and protect justice. Love fulfills the law, because love will not break the law in regards to another's difference of value or choice. Justice is moral because it seeks to give freedom for choice.
While justice is the side to love that is universal, mercy is the side that is personal. Mercy is shown in tangible ways to those whose needs vary. Mercy is not blind, as it sees clearly what the needs are and seeks to meet them. Mercy gives freedom, because it respects another's need for dignity in private moments of despair and discouragement. Mercy reaches out. but doesn't demand to serve or demean in service. Mercy is respectful.
Love is not romanticized in these values of justice or mercy. Justice and mercy seek to alleviate pain, benefit the whole and rectify the wrong.
While I have given up hope for romanticized love, in happily ever afters, as there are no "ever afters". I haven't given up on justice or mercy. While mercy doesn't appeal to me as much now, as justice once didn't in the past, I have come to understand and appreciate justice above all, as I have understood the importance of distinctions, values, and the history of our country. I have become fascinated by things that once were cold hard facts. Now, I live and love history.
I am grateful for my country and the values of freedom and justice for all, as I believe these are values that all people should experience, but most do not. I am so grateful to live in the land of the free and the home of the brave, that seeks to rectify the differences of experiencing freedom and justice for all.
I have come to understand that "love" is not the exchange rate of life in this world and humans don't Love unless they know. Love is a personal word, unlike justice.
Justice is an aspect of love that seeks equality under law, respect, dignity, and value to all people. Justice is blind to difference, because difference in race, religion or "creed of life" are not evaluated in "justice's eyes". Justice is what anyone seeks for "self" and what we need to seek for others. But, justice is measured by law, as laws define and protect justice. Love fulfills the law, because love will not break the law in regards to another's difference of value or choice. Justice is moral because it seeks to give freedom for choice.
While justice is the side to love that is universal, mercy is the side that is personal. Mercy is shown in tangible ways to those whose needs vary. Mercy is not blind, as it sees clearly what the needs are and seeks to meet them. Mercy gives freedom, because it respects another's need for dignity in private moments of despair and discouragement. Mercy reaches out. but doesn't demand to serve or demean in service. Mercy is respectful.
Love is not romanticized in these values of justice or mercy. Justice and mercy seek to alleviate pain, benefit the whole and rectify the wrong.
While I have given up hope for romanticized love, in happily ever afters, as there are no "ever afters". I haven't given up on justice or mercy. While mercy doesn't appeal to me as much now, as justice once didn't in the past, I have come to understand and appreciate justice above all, as I have understood the importance of distinctions, values, and the history of our country. I have become fascinated by things that once were cold hard facts. Now, I live and love history.
I am grateful for my country and the values of freedom and justice for all, as I believe these are values that all people should experience, but most do not. I am so grateful to live in the land of the free and the home of the brave, that seeks to rectify the differences of experiencing freedom and justice for all.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
The Economic and Global Dilemma for America
Globalization is about economic interests first and foremost and many corporations have benefitted from the labor of the marginalized. While corporations have benefitted financially, it has hindered the growth of our own workforce at home, as well as trampled over the issue of human rights abroad.
While corporations have benefited at the costs of American worker's rights and human rights, in general, humanitarian organizations have pushed for charitable service and giving. Some of these organizations are unaccountable and unregulated. Unaccountability is dangerous in international beareaucracies that have no other interests than attaining their own goals.
Danger lurks within the IO (international organizations) where "good intentions" are wrought with complex ethical dilemmas for free societies. There is nothing more complex than national versus international interests. These conflicts should be a major cause of concern in a world of terrorism.
Some believe such as the U.N. and the organizations surrounding (NGOs, NPOs, etc.) that education is the answer to "world affairs". These organizations are bent on education, healthcare, women's rights, children's rights, etc. There is nothing wrong with these endeavors, but my question is one of ethical dilemma and moral imperative.
Just in the past few days, Hillary Clinton met with China's leader to discuss co-operation in discussing the threat of the Middle Eastern nuclear powers, where terrorism is a threat to freedom and free enterprise. Hillary wanted to "table" human rights abuses in China for the cause of our country's need for "allies" for the "war on terror".
I believe, as I have said many times before, that without freedom, we have no justice, nor any means to pursue justice for anyone else. So, the value of our freedom is first and foremost, otherwise, human rights will die with the Taliban's insistence on conformity to Shairia law for God's will and glory.
Naivete' towards the "world situation of rogue governments" is not courageous or valiant, but ignorance of what prejuidice and intolerance will demand upon the individuals and societies that ignore the dangers. Good government must be protected, valued, sought and fought for, if we are to survive the constant onslaughts against our boundaries, freedoms and way of life.
Human rights, humanitarian aid, and charitble service cannot come before the primary duty to subvert evil governments and protect our own. We are a people because we have a duty to defend and protect our national interests first and foremost, otherwise, we will not be able to defend human rights in the future!
While corporations have benefited at the costs of American worker's rights and human rights, in general, humanitarian organizations have pushed for charitable service and giving. Some of these organizations are unaccountable and unregulated. Unaccountability is dangerous in international beareaucracies that have no other interests than attaining their own goals.
Danger lurks within the IO (international organizations) where "good intentions" are wrought with complex ethical dilemmas for free societies. There is nothing more complex than national versus international interests. These conflicts should be a major cause of concern in a world of terrorism.
Some believe such as the U.N. and the organizations surrounding (NGOs, NPOs, etc.) that education is the answer to "world affairs". These organizations are bent on education, healthcare, women's rights, children's rights, etc. There is nothing wrong with these endeavors, but my question is one of ethical dilemma and moral imperative.
Just in the past few days, Hillary Clinton met with China's leader to discuss co-operation in discussing the threat of the Middle Eastern nuclear powers, where terrorism is a threat to freedom and free enterprise. Hillary wanted to "table" human rights abuses in China for the cause of our country's need for "allies" for the "war on terror".
I believe, as I have said many times before, that without freedom, we have no justice, nor any means to pursue justice for anyone else. So, the value of our freedom is first and foremost, otherwise, human rights will die with the Taliban's insistence on conformity to Shairia law for God's will and glory.
Naivete' towards the "world situation of rogue governments" is not courageous or valiant, but ignorance of what prejuidice and intolerance will demand upon the individuals and societies that ignore the dangers. Good government must be protected, valued, sought and fought for, if we are to survive the constant onslaughts against our boundaries, freedoms and way of life.
Human rights, humanitarian aid, and charitble service cannot come before the primary duty to subvert evil governments and protect our own. We are a people because we have a duty to defend and protect our national interests first and foremost, otherwise, we will not be able to defend human rights in the future!
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Reflections of a Wedding Dress and Its Function
Yesterday, I went with my soon to be daughter-in-law and her mom to look at wedding dresses in Indianapolis! I enjoy these celebrations so much and really love to see the '"lovely" in the beautiful.
We left at 9:30am and didn't get home until 9:30pm, which tells you a little bit about what a great experience it was!
She had a set budget for her dress which was really "limiting to her" as far as wedding dresses go. We had been looking on the internet for used dresses for several weeks. But, because the wedding will be in September, she was a little anxious about getting this part of the shopping finished.
She had a definate syle in mind, but I knew that sometimes until one is exposed to what is "out there", one cannot be discriminating, especially on such a limited budget.
We went to 5 or 6 shops and she must have tried on 75 gowns. We found her gown at the second place we stopped, but because this is such a special occassion, I wanted to make sure that she was sure and not just buying the dress because it was in her price range. She struggled with deciding between two gowns. One was a prom dress, but it fit perfectly, was a little higher in price, but with the cleaning and alterations of the other dress, it would still fall within a similar price range. Even though she fit the prom dress perfectly and she loved it, she decided on the wedding dress. This is a wedding and not a prom, after all and even though the prom dress was beautiful, its purpose was not to 'be in a wedding'.
Wedding dresses have a special function and play a special part in setting the tone of the wedding. This is the same as the function of an individual within an organization or social structure. The question was not whether the prom gown would function as a wedding dress, although that was not it's maker's intent. It was whether it was the best for the "part". And whether the wearer of the dress would "feel" that she had sold short her "ideal" for a "function".
I think this is where dreams and pragmatism conflict, at times. Dreams are our "ideals" of life, while "how things really are" is the pragmatic experience in life. Most of us have limited "budgets" (attainment of dreams), but the question is not the "budget" but if the choice of the "pragmatic" (prom dress) is the best for the occassion (attainment of the "goal). How does pragmatism "feel" on the ones who "wear it"? Is it appropriate, or "will it "do" because of costs limitations? Are we functioning on our "budgets" (attainment of our dreams) at the costs of the pragmatic (prom dress)? And what will be the "end" (attainment of the goal, setting the tone of the wedding)?
The question is one of value, purpose, goals, function, and beauty. While goals, purposes, and function are usually forefront in our society and this is why we are a nation driven by business models, will those goals, "functions" and purposes distort values or beauty?
Values are not the considered by the unreflective, while beauty is certainly not the most important emphasis in our pragmatic society. Beauty is in the eye's of the beholder and this is why the individual is expendiable in our society, when it comes to business propositions. The individual doesn't count in a system of pragmatic interests. The individual is only a means of accomplishing the end result, which benefits the "bottom line".
While business interests do drive our nation's "purposes" there are ethical ideals that are written in our general laws. Even though individuals are protected by these laws and have a right to be informed about "government interests" and public monies, if individuals do not advantage themselves of this information, then they hinder the democratic process. Their voice is not heard and this sets up a situation where others will begin to take advantage, as many times there are loopholes to be found in our general laws.
Historically, our Nation has lived through the fights for civil liberties of many "unrepresented groups" (African Americans, woman's rights, etc.). This is what free societies are about. And fortunately, our nation's laws do protect the indivdual, because our Founding Fathers understood the individual's specificity, uniquess and right to exist apart from any other defining or limiting "function". The individual is free to choose the groups he identifies with. This is not so in socialistic or communistic systems. It is determined for you!
We are a people, because we are individuals that all have a voice. The value of the harmony of diversity, and the validity of the uniquely individual. This is freedom and justice for all and I think that my soon to be daughter in law made the right choice in choosing a dress that was designed for its future function
We left at 9:30am and didn't get home until 9:30pm, which tells you a little bit about what a great experience it was!
She had a set budget for her dress which was really "limiting to her" as far as wedding dresses go. We had been looking on the internet for used dresses for several weeks. But, because the wedding will be in September, she was a little anxious about getting this part of the shopping finished.
She had a definate syle in mind, but I knew that sometimes until one is exposed to what is "out there", one cannot be discriminating, especially on such a limited budget.
We went to 5 or 6 shops and she must have tried on 75 gowns. We found her gown at the second place we stopped, but because this is such a special occassion, I wanted to make sure that she was sure and not just buying the dress because it was in her price range. She struggled with deciding between two gowns. One was a prom dress, but it fit perfectly, was a little higher in price, but with the cleaning and alterations of the other dress, it would still fall within a similar price range. Even though she fit the prom dress perfectly and she loved it, she decided on the wedding dress. This is a wedding and not a prom, after all and even though the prom dress was beautiful, its purpose was not to 'be in a wedding'.
Wedding dresses have a special function and play a special part in setting the tone of the wedding. This is the same as the function of an individual within an organization or social structure. The question was not whether the prom gown would function as a wedding dress, although that was not it's maker's intent. It was whether it was the best for the "part". And whether the wearer of the dress would "feel" that she had sold short her "ideal" for a "function".
I think this is where dreams and pragmatism conflict, at times. Dreams are our "ideals" of life, while "how things really are" is the pragmatic experience in life. Most of us have limited "budgets" (attainment of dreams), but the question is not the "budget" but if the choice of the "pragmatic" (prom dress) is the best for the occassion (attainment of the "goal). How does pragmatism "feel" on the ones who "wear it"? Is it appropriate, or "will it "do" because of costs limitations? Are we functioning on our "budgets" (attainment of our dreams) at the costs of the pragmatic (prom dress)? And what will be the "end" (attainment of the goal, setting the tone of the wedding)?
The question is one of value, purpose, goals, function, and beauty. While goals, purposes, and function are usually forefront in our society and this is why we are a nation driven by business models, will those goals, "functions" and purposes distort values or beauty?
Values are not the considered by the unreflective, while beauty is certainly not the most important emphasis in our pragmatic society. Beauty is in the eye's of the beholder and this is why the individual is expendiable in our society, when it comes to business propositions. The individual doesn't count in a system of pragmatic interests. The individual is only a means of accomplishing the end result, which benefits the "bottom line".
While business interests do drive our nation's "purposes" there are ethical ideals that are written in our general laws. Even though individuals are protected by these laws and have a right to be informed about "government interests" and public monies, if individuals do not advantage themselves of this information, then they hinder the democratic process. Their voice is not heard and this sets up a situation where others will begin to take advantage, as many times there are loopholes to be found in our general laws.
Historically, our Nation has lived through the fights for civil liberties of many "unrepresented groups" (African Americans, woman's rights, etc.). This is what free societies are about. And fortunately, our nation's laws do protect the indivdual, because our Founding Fathers understood the individual's specificity, uniquess and right to exist apart from any other defining or limiting "function". The individual is free to choose the groups he identifies with. This is not so in socialistic or communistic systems. It is determined for you!
We are a people, because we are individuals that all have a voice. The value of the harmony of diversity, and the validity of the uniquely individual. This is freedom and justice for all and I think that my soon to be daughter in law made the right choice in choosing a dress that was designed for its future function
Monday, February 16, 2009
Intolerance for Intolerance
It was just reported on Fox news that a Muslim woman was be-headed for filing for divorce! The man is being charged with 2nd degree murdery. Hurrah for our govenment's "sense" of sensibility when it comes to religious conviction! We cannot tolerante religious intolerance, of any kind!
This is one freedom we are not going to tolerate, even in the name of religious freedom! We are a nation that believes that behavior is defined by law, and belief is personal and private. Therefore, we will not allow "morality" in the name of religion, to subvert ethical behavior toward those who differ!
This is one freedom we are not going to tolerate, even in the name of religious freedom! We are a nation that believes that behavior is defined by law, and belief is personal and private. Therefore, we will not allow "morality" in the name of religion, to subvert ethical behavior toward those who differ!
Saturday, February 14, 2009
A Play on Freedom
Tonight, my husband and I went to a play. I don't remember the playwright, so I will not divulge the name of the play, either. The theme on freedom came out loud and clear to me, but it was interesting to hear comments about the play's meaning from others during the after-talk. Everyone had grasped different aspects of the play. Sometimes, I wonder if faith is not like this, too.
The play was set in Zion, Indiana. The main character of the play was a boy, who suffered a grave fear of water, due to his mother's drowning. She had died, while saving him. The boy's fear was directly impacted by a wandering ex-preacher, who had come to his town. The preacher be-friended the town and the town's characters were contrasted against his presence.
The theme to me was that this preacher's freedom from religion gave him the freedom to touch many in that town. He became human and put down his "duty" to preach the "gospel" and truly met some needs in the process.
His freedom was contrasted most to me by a lady named Norma. She was the epitome of a religious person, who had "prayed for a preacher to come to town"...'perhaps, a revival was in store", she just knew that the "Lord had sent him", etc. At the same time, her prudish fears, and her superstitious interpretations were truly amazing, but very true to life. She was bound by a narrow view of life and how God "works". Hers was a world of religious conversion and believing that conversion was the most important aspect to life.
In Norma's zealousness, she missed by not seeing, by being blinded to what she wanted to see. She missed the boy's need to be freed from his fear of water and his need to be physically healed from ring-worm. The ex-preacher had eyes to see and sought to aleviate the boy's handicaps.
In the end, the boy dies, while Norma give "praise to Jesus" that he had "been baptized". The others are stuck by the sadness of a life that has ended. She could only see her religious conviction. Her zeal had made her detached from life and the tragedy that had struck everyone else.
One does not have to be a Christian, in fact, being a Christian, was a hinderance in this play. At least, a "traditional Christian". I think that life is far too complex to simply believe that "if people only believe the "gospel" everything will work out. This view, unfortunately, was one that I grew up with...
I remember one of my family members quoting Romans 8;28 to me after my engagement was broken. It just seems that Scripture leaves one cold when the waters are too deep to swim. Scriptures have been useful in such hands to knock down, take out, suppress, repress, oppress, dominate, discriminate, badger, hinder, minimize tragedy, judge, condemn, ostricize, exclude, prohibit, and anything else that one would choose to do independently from those in "power".
So, this play had a meaning of freedom from religion. A freedom to be human and that being human was a way to touch and make a differenc in another human's life. Humans are what life is about, not religion, not conversion and not some supernatural text of religion. No, life is about life and should be embraced alongside others of like kind (although they may be different from oneself).
The play was set in Zion, Indiana. The main character of the play was a boy, who suffered a grave fear of water, due to his mother's drowning. She had died, while saving him. The boy's fear was directly impacted by a wandering ex-preacher, who had come to his town. The preacher be-friended the town and the town's characters were contrasted against his presence.
The theme to me was that this preacher's freedom from religion gave him the freedom to touch many in that town. He became human and put down his "duty" to preach the "gospel" and truly met some needs in the process.
His freedom was contrasted most to me by a lady named Norma. She was the epitome of a religious person, who had "prayed for a preacher to come to town"...'perhaps, a revival was in store", she just knew that the "Lord had sent him", etc. At the same time, her prudish fears, and her superstitious interpretations were truly amazing, but very true to life. She was bound by a narrow view of life and how God "works". Hers was a world of religious conversion and believing that conversion was the most important aspect to life.
In Norma's zealousness, she missed by not seeing, by being blinded to what she wanted to see. She missed the boy's need to be freed from his fear of water and his need to be physically healed from ring-worm. The ex-preacher had eyes to see and sought to aleviate the boy's handicaps.
In the end, the boy dies, while Norma give "praise to Jesus" that he had "been baptized". The others are stuck by the sadness of a life that has ended. She could only see her religious conviction. Her zeal had made her detached from life and the tragedy that had struck everyone else.
One does not have to be a Christian, in fact, being a Christian, was a hinderance in this play. At least, a "traditional Christian". I think that life is far too complex to simply believe that "if people only believe the "gospel" everything will work out. This view, unfortunately, was one that I grew up with...
I remember one of my family members quoting Romans 8;28 to me after my engagement was broken. It just seems that Scripture leaves one cold when the waters are too deep to swim. Scriptures have been useful in such hands to knock down, take out, suppress, repress, oppress, dominate, discriminate, badger, hinder, minimize tragedy, judge, condemn, ostricize, exclude, prohibit, and anything else that one would choose to do independently from those in "power".
So, this play had a meaning of freedom from religion. A freedom to be human and that being human was a way to touch and make a differenc in another human's life. Humans are what life is about, not religion, not conversion and not some supernatural text of religion. No, life is about life and should be embraced alongside others of like kind (although they may be different from oneself).
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Thomas Jefferson on Good Government and Freedom of Inquiriy
"A wise and frugal government shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
"Fix reason firmly in the seat and call to her tribunal every fact every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of God because if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
"Fix reason firmly in the seat and call to her tribunal every fact every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of God because if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
