Life or Liberty?

Happy July 4th!

Today is the celebration of our Independence! And the meaning of this day is significant to the world, as it is and was an "American experiment' in diversity of every kind. Governments are instituted by men to maintain order in society. Our order is one that is moral as it values all expressions of life, and guranteew equality under law, this is what liberty is about.

Conservative Christian's that have a fundamental bent believe in the 'pro-life" movement. Their ultimate value is life, as it is believed to be given by God. God's sovereignty is understood in these circles to mean whatever happens is "God's will", as their understanding and commitment to liberty is limited.

These Christians believe that choice is not to be valued as to one's life, because life is pre-destined or pre-determined by sovereign right of God within "providence" or sovereign rule of scripture. These Christians do not understand that our country's ultimate value is based on liberty, not life.

Is life of value without choice or liberty? I believe not for liberty means justice, as to conscience about the details of one's life. But, while I believe that civil liberties are important, so is upholding moral order, which is based on "law".

Law is what is legislated and agreed upon to maintain order and a civil society. Therefore, there are many lives that are of value that the conservative would dismiss "in the name of God". I believe that this dismissal itself is abhorrent, as we should be intolerant of the intolerant. So, while we may disagree with how one chooses to live their life and the values they uphold, we must in a free society allow them their "freedom of conscience".

Freedom of conscience affirms the religious just as much as it affirms the "infidel". Therefore, we must not dismiss the other without acknowledging that we undermine the very values that our Founder's had, diversity.

Does this mean that someone has to tolerate or live within a group identity that is not conducive toward their convictions? No. Our country is large enough to embrace all forms of understanding. We just cannot tolerate the intolerant, when it comes to the values of life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty, or give me death"! I think he is right, because otherwise we live, yes,
but under tyranny!

Order or Rights?

Government exists to maintain order, while rights defend the human. Human rights are only acknowledged within governments that allow difference, liberty of conscience, and dissention. These rights are granted to Americans in their "Bill of Rights".

So, while order, structure, law, and authority are necessary to protect society, these aspects of society are to be open to change, evaluation, scrutiny, accountability and dissent. Otherwise, the government becomes oppressive, dictatorial and limiting of human freedom.

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?

Jesus as Prophet, Priest and King in Governmental Form

In last post, Jesus was understood as the "legislative branch" as he fulfilled the law, by doing the law. But, Jesus was also representative of the judicial branch as he interpreted the law against the Jewish religious leaders. He never denied being a Jew, as he even preached in the synagogue. He did not come to set up a "new religion or religious order". Jesus was a universalizer of the law in understanding the full intent and meaning of the law.

Not only was he the prophet and priest, but also, the King. He was understood to be God. The executive branch, the President, is not King, as his position is balance by the "others". Balance of power brings true humility as it understands its dependence on the "other" branch. In this sense, there is no sovereignty. Only the law in its defense of the Constitution (the President), it interpretation (the judiary) and its legislation and representation (Congress). Our form of government, in this sense, is the most "", philosophically.

As to sovereignty, this form of government protects individual rights, as this government believes in the universal of the individual, as equal before the law. Justice defends and protects the indivdual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So, while Law is upheld by our government, sovereignty is understood in individual terms.