Of course 9-11 was not "happy". And because we do not want to experience such a "happy" occassion again, we cannot forget what is symbolized.
9-11 symbolized such a radical faith that men and women are willing to die for it. This faith is a faith that is based not on reason, but revelation. It is not just a transcentdental view of life, but also, a political one. Islam is a politicized faith. And such a politicized faith as an absolutist, exclusivistic, and intolerant one, is dangerous indeed. It does not allow women and children basic human rights nor is it open to change. Those who impose laws that support such a faith are intolerant and authoritarian.
Our Founders found a nation based on freedoms. Freedoms from human authorities and based on the "rule of law". Men and women were willing to die for such liberties. Such radical commitment to the values that underwrote our Constitution are what gain human liberty and underwrite human rights movement. America's laws protect individual liberties and are not intolerant, unchanging and authoritarian.
Our nation is known for it opportunites and its innovation. We are a nation that absorbs all cultures and does not discriminate based upon personal convictions. Freedom of thought and speech guaruntees that the public's interest will be won at the ballot box. Our views have been so conditioned by such an environment, that it is hard for us to imagine such an oppressive religious regime. Our Founders protected our society from religious wars by the Establishment Clause.
Now, on the twilight of a decade of struggling against a religious view, our nation finds itself in a type of 'religious war' over legislation and how we should treat those who do not respect the 'rule of law'. This is a dangerous time in our country's history, but not because of "God's impending judgment" upon an ungodly nation, but because of the undermining of our country's valuing of liberty and law. We are unlike any other nation, because we are a government "for the people and by the people". Let us count our blessing todays and not forget the costs of liberty and furthering justice.
Aren't you glad that you live in America?
Showing posts with label freedom of conscience. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freedom of conscience. Show all posts
Friday, September 11, 2009
Sunday, July 5, 2009
A Re-Definition of What is Valued ..
Belief is a form that is constructed by certain groups that maintain their group identity. These are groups such as faith groups, social groups, nation states, etc. Those that are the leaders within these groups formulate what is to be believed to maintain identification and social order to accomplish their particular purposes. Beliefs form laws, and are speicified by the group's values .
While beliefs form laws, these beliefs also define behavior that is appropriate within a certain group. Those who maintain the behavior that is defined as appropriate are the ones on the "inside". These people "belong". "Others" do not belong. These boundaries help to define the "self'.
"Self" is a function of the ego and those who have healthy egos are defined by no source outside of themselves, as they are defined by their own values and not group identification.
If the ego is not formed or values are not clarified, then the ego is formed by those in their particular cultural location. This frames the ego's defenses and helps the "ego" to define itself over against another ego. This maintains an "us and them" mentality. But, "us and them" mentality is healthy, in that it distinguishes between. Healthy egos do make distinctions.
I have come to the conclusion that believers base their faith on belief systems (and systems are part of the definition of "original sin"). These maintain religious identification, while those who base their faith in reason have two responses.
Those who base their reason on bahavior are agnostic. They do not want to commit to a particular definition of value, whereas, those who are atheistic base their value on reason alone. Self is defined by reason's assessment of greatest value.
Agnostics are tenuous in their commitment because their "self" has not commited one way or another. Perhaps, ego definition is needed by identifying with others in their behavior, while those whose ego is defined does not hesitate to define themselves outside of any other framework. They evaluate their commitment on "self-interest". So, conflict in self interest brings about a resolution of one's important and most valued commitments.
I think that committing to oneself in what one values most is not dismissing the other, but defining self. This is a necessary "duty", as without definition, there can be no resolution, commitment, or focus in one's life as to values.
Diversity in unity is for the functioning of society that is reasonable. While all men are created equal, there are differences that must be allowed. These distinctions are where boundaries must be maintained in valuing the best. It is ethical in focus, as it chooses between two "goods". It distinguishes and discerns. This is why it is important that leadership is not given to those who cannot be diverse in their understanding of "diversity". Otherwise, we allow absolutist to draw lines that need more nuance, subtlty, understanding etc.This is what diplomacy is about. But diplomats also have to deal with absolutists. This view of diversity in unity defines what is "true" for one's "self definition.
Unity in diversity is the view of group identification and not self identification. Unity in diversity calls for conformity to group identifiers, so that the stated purposes of leadership can be followed. This does not allow freedom of conscience, but a commitment to certain purposes already defined. This view is a functional approach to orgaizational structuring and societial functioning. This view defines what is "love" or tolerance.
Therefore, I continue to uphold our Representative Republic as the highest moral order and value for it allows the individual to choose his greatest good and greatest value within the definitions of lawful behavior. The individual pursues his own course, and not another's for his own life and as he does so, he brings value to society and understands his own values better.
Someone said on another blog site that America does not have a culture. Culture is defined by religious tradition and we do not define ourselves on religious tradition, but a freedom of conscience, that is upheld by laws. This is what the separation of Church and State is about. The State protects the individual from being accused as a criminal based on religious ideals., and yet, it protects the religious individuals freedoms, as well.
Our laws are defined by universal human ideals that protect individuality or human rights. But, "We, the People" have defined oursevles by our Constitutional government and discriminate based on citizen rights. Therefore, "We, the people" do exist apart from another nation's interests. We must maintain the distincition and stop allowing multiculturalism to play into the hands of dissolving our freedoms "as a people". The Nation State still has significance and the citizen still has rights!
While beliefs form laws, these beliefs also define behavior that is appropriate within a certain group. Those who maintain the behavior that is defined as appropriate are the ones on the "inside". These people "belong". "Others" do not belong. These boundaries help to define the "self'.
"Self" is a function of the ego and those who have healthy egos are defined by no source outside of themselves, as they are defined by their own values and not group identification.
If the ego is not formed or values are not clarified, then the ego is formed by those in their particular cultural location. This frames the ego's defenses and helps the "ego" to define itself over against another ego. This maintains an "us and them" mentality. But, "us and them" mentality is healthy, in that it distinguishes between. Healthy egos do make distinctions.
I have come to the conclusion that believers base their faith on belief systems (and systems are part of the definition of "original sin"). These maintain religious identification, while those who base their faith in reason have two responses.
Those who base their reason on bahavior are agnostic. They do not want to commit to a particular definition of value, whereas, those who are atheistic base their value on reason alone. Self is defined by reason's assessment of greatest value.
Agnostics are tenuous in their commitment because their "self" has not commited one way or another. Perhaps, ego definition is needed by identifying with others in their behavior, while those whose ego is defined does not hesitate to define themselves outside of any other framework. They evaluate their commitment on "self-interest". So, conflict in self interest brings about a resolution of one's important and most valued commitments.
I think that committing to oneself in what one values most is not dismissing the other, but defining self. This is a necessary "duty", as without definition, there can be no resolution, commitment, or focus in one's life as to values.
Diversity in unity is for the functioning of society that is reasonable. While all men are created equal, there are differences that must be allowed. These distinctions are where boundaries must be maintained in valuing the best. It is ethical in focus, as it chooses between two "goods". It distinguishes and discerns. This is why it is important that leadership is not given to those who cannot be diverse in their understanding of "diversity". Otherwise, we allow absolutist to draw lines that need more nuance, subtlty, understanding etc.This is what diplomacy is about. But diplomats also have to deal with absolutists. This view of diversity in unity defines what is "true" for one's "self definition.
Unity in diversity is the view of group identification and not self identification. Unity in diversity calls for conformity to group identifiers, so that the stated purposes of leadership can be followed. This does not allow freedom of conscience, but a commitment to certain purposes already defined. This view is a functional approach to orgaizational structuring and societial functioning. This view defines what is "love" or tolerance.
Therefore, I continue to uphold our Representative Republic as the highest moral order and value for it allows the individual to choose his greatest good and greatest value within the definitions of lawful behavior. The individual pursues his own course, and not another's for his own life and as he does so, he brings value to society and understands his own values better.
Someone said on another blog site that America does not have a culture. Culture is defined by religious tradition and we do not define ourselves on religious tradition, but a freedom of conscience, that is upheld by laws. This is what the separation of Church and State is about. The State protects the individual from being accused as a criminal based on religious ideals., and yet, it protects the religious individuals freedoms, as well.
Our laws are defined by universal human ideals that protect individuality or human rights. But, "We, the People" have defined oursevles by our Constitutional government and discriminate based on citizen rights. Therefore, "We, the people" do exist apart from another nation's interests. We must maintain the distincition and stop allowing multiculturalism to play into the hands of dissolving our freedoms "as a people". The Nation State still has significance and the citizen still has rights!
Monday, June 29, 2009
Scientific Understanding and Morality
On "Exploring Our Matrix", there was a blog entry which correlated Scripture's "strong and week" to those who believe in evolutionary thinking. It was argued that using Galatians or Romans depended on which one was using the argument. But, a response in the comment section argued that arguing for or against circumcision, a religious rite, was not to be compared to the science/religion debate. The science/religion debate is based on "fact", whereas, circumcision is based on "faith".
In the context of a religious community, the science/religion argument as to the strong would stand, whereas, generally, it would not. Scripture is not to be used as a proof-text against "knowledge" in general, as the fundamentalist argue, as this would take the individual books of scripture out of original context.
Scientific understanding are based on the facts of reason and not on faith, although one can adhere to faith in reason's understanding, without upholding an allegience to reason's understanding in an absolute sense. Reason's understanding is always historically bound, because science is always enlarging our understanding and our views. We have to revise and re-formulate what and how we believe and understand. This re-formulation and revision is part of growth, intellectually and morally.
Behavior, which is based on understandings of morality, is understood within a certain context. Different denominations understand faith differently (beliefs), and therefore, behavior is understood within that context. Each denomination uses "reason" to understand and defend a specified way of "seeing". And membership in a particular denomination means that one "belongs".
In our open and free society, we understand that one's view of behavior is limited by the laws that define what is "right or wrong". These laws are "hammered out" in Congress or decided by our "Supreme Court". We are a people because we are defined by the "rule of law" and not the Divine Right of Kings.
It is first and foremost important to uphold freedom of conscience, because without it, we will limit another's freedom, which may just as well limit the basis of our society. The difficulty facing the West today is how does one uphold our liberal democratic ideals, when certain religious fundamentalists want to subvert liberty for another. Where do civil liberties end without undermining the basis of society itself?
The discussion is a two-edged sword. How do you define liberty and law?
In the context of a religious community, the science/religion argument as to the strong would stand, whereas, generally, it would not. Scripture is not to be used as a proof-text against "knowledge" in general, as the fundamentalist argue, as this would take the individual books of scripture out of original context.
Scientific understanding are based on the facts of reason and not on faith, although one can adhere to faith in reason's understanding, without upholding an allegience to reason's understanding in an absolute sense. Reason's understanding is always historically bound, because science is always enlarging our understanding and our views. We have to revise and re-formulate what and how we believe and understand. This re-formulation and revision is part of growth, intellectually and morally.
Behavior, which is based on understandings of morality, is understood within a certain context. Different denominations understand faith differently (beliefs), and therefore, behavior is understood within that context. Each denomination uses "reason" to understand and defend a specified way of "seeing". And membership in a particular denomination means that one "belongs".
In our open and free society, we understand that one's view of behavior is limited by the laws that define what is "right or wrong". These laws are "hammered out" in Congress or decided by our "Supreme Court". We are a people because we are defined by the "rule of law" and not the Divine Right of Kings.
It is first and foremost important to uphold freedom of conscience, because without it, we will limit another's freedom, which may just as well limit the basis of our society. The difficulty facing the West today is how does one uphold our liberal democratic ideals, when certain religious fundamentalists want to subvert liberty for another. Where do civil liberties end without undermining the basis of society itself?
The discussion is a two-edged sword. How do you define liberty and law?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
