The Movie, "The Source Code" and Issues of Bio-Ethics

This past week-end our son told us we might like the movie, "The Source Code". So, we went to see it Friday. It was a move about how the State used the new "brain science" and "quantum theory" to protect national security. The ethical question was one of where or when life is valued and for what purpose and who owns their brain or minds?! The story left one with unanswered questions about where to define the limits of science, and the State.

The science experiment was done with a knowledge of "parallel universes" in quanturm theory where 8 minutes of overlap make for new information about the past. A local terrorist attack on a Chicago metro had left the military community on "alert" to another terrorist threat in the center of the city, where many lives would be lost, unless they found the culprit of the 'metor explosion".

The soldier who'd lost half his body, but not all his brain was left in an incubator for the purpose of taking advantage of the 8 minutes to investigate who was responsible for the bombing of the metro. The experiment kept putting the soldier back into the same "past reality" so he could investigate more fully or differently to find the terrorist, in hopes that the terrorist would be kept from another attack with larger reprecussions.

The soldier did his duty, but under the controls of the State, until the person in charge of direct command started seeing the soldier as "a person", who had had traumatic experiences and thought it better to let him die in peace, as promised, rather than continue to use his brain for further experiments. Even though "the greater good" would grant using the brain of a disabled person in such a way, the ethical questions were obvious.

It reminded me of the Karen Quinlen (sp?) case where a brain dead girl continued to be hooked up to a respirator. The question in this case,  is "life" defined by "the brain" alone? What makes for human life? Surely, we in the West believe that all aspects of the person, the brain, the body, the mind, the personality, the family, the community, the nation, the WHOLE is responsible for fully functioning Personhood.

For Those Who Presuppose Experience...

Destiny is but a phrase of the weak human heart, the dark apology for every error. The strong and virtuous admit no destiny.

On earth conscience guides; in heaven God watches. And destiny is but the phantom we invoke to silence the one and dethrone the other.
Edward Bulwer-Lytton


The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
Bertrand Russell



These two quotes are relevant to those that are so cocksure about their destiny and knowledge! Those that think they understand and know everything, whether the believer or unbeliever know not what they speak! We are all ignorant in areas, and we are all in the 'dark" no matter how "enlightened", OR how much "revelation" we can understand!

Experience should teach us that none of us are immune to any of the vices of heart, that we try to "win" at another's costs! And for what, and why? For "God" or for "Man"? For the "Greater Good"? Do you suppose the costs to another when you plan your destiny?

Destiny means an "ultimate end". It can be understood by the religous to be predestination, and to the unbeliever as the "work" of "gods" (men). Oligarchies are what are made from small groups of elite that design such plans. Our Founders were not impressed by oligarchies, because they sought to defend the right of all under the "rule of law"!

Is there an "ulitmate end"? The religous believe so, as these believe in rewards and punishment in eternity, but not all religous believe such. Some believe that we are rewarded or punished in the here and now. The unbeliever believes that by his "wisdom" or "shrewdness" he earns his "keep" and people should applaud his ability to "control the situation".

Experience is a teacher, all right. A teacher that Man is just man. And that despite man's noble qualities, man can't help but flounder, faulter and fail if he has not been reflecting on his life long enough to evaluate its values as to ends. Are all 'ends" equal? Or there more noble ends, than others? Do others have a right to choose their end, or is your end the only one to be promoted? Why? Who are you?

Some presuppose that humans identify through experience! These like to promote human experiments so their "end" will be verified! Empirical evidence in human form! Others like to use sacred texts to evaluate human history! And what will the knowledge bring mankind? Of what use is it?

How do we frame our lives? How do we understand our values? What are our priorities? Why do we prioritize the way we do? What do we want to accomplish? What do we ultimately desire? and Why?

Some questions I do not know how to answer. I cannot answer them until I study further as to my frame of reference, which is nature herself.  This is work that must be done. Otherwise, I will not know what I value and why? It is my life. I have only one to live and I don't believe in eternal life, heaven or hell.  "From dust we came, and from dust we will return". 

"Ordered Liberty" a Product of the Mind

Americans live in "ordered liberty". We appreciate our order through our Constituional government, and our liberty through the way we want to frame our reality. "Reality" is framed by the individual in personal values, and is lived out in adulthood.. Oscar Wilde said that a society was a mental construct, and this is why our culture allows for individual conscience  and expression. Our laws protect our liberties and this is why we are a pluralistic society, although we have a "Judeo-Christian" influence.".James T. Ellison said it best
The real death of America will come when everyone is alike.

"Minds" are what our brains record through memory and our senses in our present reality. How we understand and interpret our reality in the present is influenced greatly by our past experiences and the "messages" that were interpreted again by our "minds". Our futures can be affected by these "messages" as they give us our expectation and impact our views of the future.

An individual's personal history is not the only reality that impacts his understanding in the present, but also his information about an objective past. Humans come to understand and interpret reality from their understanding of history. Personal history is a given, but not national, social, cultural history. These are subjects to be sought. It is a framing outside of "self", but constitutes another aspect of "self-understanding".

Our nation is exceptional because it allows for the personal, and not just a national, or cultural history. But, unfortunately, America's personal histories have overshadowed our national and cultural history. And that is a sad state for a society, because it undermines our unity, as well as hinders human development. Mikhail Gorbachev understood that unity is of necessity for a peaceful co-existence;
"Peace is not unity in similarity but unity in diversity, in the comparison and conciliation of differences"

I think the greates danger, as well as our greatest blessing is our diversity, because liberty does not protect our national or cultural interests. And our emphasis on individuality has also hindered our understanding of ourselves as "a people". I have hope that the 'Tea Party" movement will bring about a more engaged and informed citizenry. And that through our realization of our diversity, we will come to appreciate the need for unity, for our nation and our own future hope.

Richard Beck's Monsters and Hospitality and World Affairs

Richard Beck's "Experimental Theology" blog is an interesting blog site by a Christian psychologist. He has recently been talking about "monsters and hospitality". He identifies our psychological responses/reactions to these monsters, as a projection of self. This morning's report on the news made me wonder about this theory's practicality, when it comes to world affairs.

Prejuidice is the result of an "us/them" dichotomous mind-set. Social psychologists understand the dynamics that lead to humanitarian disasters, like genocide. Although humanitarians may desire to break down the walls of these identifiying barriers to "commonality", these identifiers are a necessary boundary line that defines "self" and "other". "Monster" is a term that Beck identifies as a "them", less than human label. Without identifiers we cannot discriminate or think, make decisions, as we must make judgments when we determine a course of action, which demands that we make distinctions. Multiculturalism leads to a non-discriminatory mind-set.

Today's news, as well as recent news, has made me wonder about the wisdom of this type of thinking. Russia is now expected to locate bombers in Cuba and Venezuela. Cuba is 80 miles from American shores. What are the reasons? Are we the "monster" and why?

Just last week, Great Britain's prime minister, George Brown, came to meet with our President. Great Britian is one of the closest allies to America. The usual dinner meeting as couples did not occur and a statue of Winston Churchill, a hopitable gesture, was sent back to Great Britian. I do not understand why this action occurred.

In Beck's terms, how are we to not believe in monsters in this world. We must, if we don't want the annihlation of our identifying factors. I think America's identifying factors are worthy ones, but that doesn't mean that some in our system have abused them. Americans, for the most part, are a generous, hospitable, and friendly people. Other nationalities may see us as arrogant, opinionated, rude, crude and naive.

Our seeming arrogance and opinionatedness, is just what our culture allows and condones in our "freedom of speech" and our individual freedoms. We speak our minds, but we also welcome others to as well. Our seeming rudeness is just our lack of sensitivity to a difference in culture, as we, for the most part, are allowed individuality within our culture, so what is a traditional "manner" is not even on the 'radar" of an American. And our naivete' is only because we believe in the American Dream that all men can attain and meet their highest potential, so we are optimist, for the most part. We have a 'can do attitude".

As I defend our cultural misconceptions, I do not deny that we Americans need to understand others a little better, as we don't get "world news" for the most part. And our nation's largness and diversity lends itself to belly gazing without regard for diversity abroad. So, to those whose traditions have been offended, tolerance is a value that could benefit you and your country, as graciousness is about tolerance. And we need graceousness and tolerance to live in this world.

A Childish Faith Births a Faithful Skeptic

I used to believe in fairy tales that there was a prince that would come and take me away to a fairy land to live happily ever after. But, life is more tragic than a child's imaginings. We are not protected by God and there are no supernatural interventions, at least in my life. That does not mean that I don't believe that blessings are from God, as all things are blessings. But, to me, to assume in a supernatural intervention and presume upon that in plans is presumptuous. David prayed that God would keep him from presumptuous sins. Presumption is taking things into one's own hands. Faith is much more like my husband's life of quiet trust, a lack of worry, fear and anxiety. He believes that things will work out. Unfortunately, for me my grandmother used to tell me that all the time (usually during periods of tragedy). But, life did not work out as my heart desired. So, I don't believe that things work out. I used to.

When I came to faith, I understood it to be the best news on earth, because I didn't have to perform, because God loved me like I was. That meant that I was loveable, and since I'd neve felt loveable all my life, this was exciting for me. In fact, I thought that my identification with Christ's death was good news. Why? Because I hated myself so much that this was an easy emotional suicide of 'self". This way a better person could live, Christ. I practiced my faith and continued to believe irregardless of any trial that this was the way of learning how to be holy and like Christ. I was crucifying my flesh, so that Christ could live in me. But, what I came to experienc in the end was an annihlation of my very identity and self. This is not good news, as it leaves no person and no sense of personhood or boundaries, which are a healthy necessity for personal identity and a healthy sense of self. So, lately, whenever I hear of "dying to self", "being crucified with Christ", etc. It has connotations for me of an emotional pain that I cannot describe. This is not healthy Christian faith. And those who believe that I am only protecting myself are unfortunately, misguided, as whenever someone has no sense of "self' there is a tendency for others to trample boundaries that must be maintained. This is a healthy self-respect and regard. It is not selfhishness, as I had always thought and had practiced denying myself in this regard. Sometimes, those like me with little of no identity attach to a religious identity to bulwark a lack of development. Recently, I have come to recognize that boundary maintenance is a discipline that I must practice, just as much as those who are presumptuous must practice self-control.

Now, my faith is tattered, worn, faltering at times, wondering for a reason, and thinking about a faith that has died and birthed a critical doubt, sometimes skepticism,. The death of my previous faith breeds anger at those who propose a simplistic faith and trust, and a grief and self-recrimination over being so naive and gullible. This is a place of learning about myself, my values, my friends, my family, and my own sense of self identity. It is a place of growth and a place of faith, nonetheless.

What Kind of God?

Mankind tries to understand God by developing different ways of worship. Some confine their understanding to a text, others to a tradition's "wisdom", while others have given up hoping to understand the transcendent, for the present problems are too demanding for them to take the time.

What is the Christian response to such diversity?

Christians should embrace diversity, as Jesus life and message did not limit or confine his ministry to the understandings of either text or tradition. This means that the Christian message should be about humanity, not God. Man is made in God's image and Christians and Jews were commanded to make no other graven image...That means that the face of man is the face of God. That does not mean that God's face is individually defined, but must be seen within the faces of all of humanity and its multiverse ways of understanding God.

Christianiy needs to define itself on humanity, and humanities' giftings in every area of life. The problem of a universal Christian faith, is that there is opporsition from those who define their faith along the lines of traditional or conservative understandings and feel a universal call to the Church would diminish the Church's distinctiveness. This has always happened within Chruch History. What do you propose in seeking to unify diversity? Surely, you don't propose conformity, do you?

Identity, and 'Tolerance

People all have identities that are defined by nation, faith, cultural behaviors, family, tribe, job, etc. But, when our identities so tightly bind our 'necks" that we cannot engage another, then we cease to be tolerant. Intolerance happens all the time, in families, between nations, between cultures, between political ideologies, etc.

Tolerance is an ability to hear another and their values, desires, and goals. Part of conflict resolution, diplomatic efforts and strategic planning, is engaging the different. Those who are outside the community of dialogue cannot be an enthusiastic "team member". Of course, terrorists cannot be engaged, because they cease to be open to dialogue.

Terrorists are those who feel their "goal" is a goal that cannot be compromised because it is God's will and God's will must be done and others be damned. This is intolerance of the tyrannical kind. History, as well as present day dictators, illustrate this mentality. A mentality of intolerance is a mentality of "right". And the "right" is based on misguided principles of what is ultimately best.

It was good to see that recently Condaleesa Rice engaged Kadafi.

Identity, Power, and Law (justice) in American Internationalism

All of us live in the "real" world. What do I mean by this? We exist within contexts of national and personal realities that define who we are. These realities are defined by the social structures of family, community of faith, and nation. These structures bring order to our lives. All humans need these frames of reference for identity and meaning to their lives.

Many in our world do not have these meaning-making structures, due to dysfunction in the family, community of faith on the personal level or war on the national level...

Our form of government, in its balance of power, as well as its representation, is most reflective of "natural revelation". The balance of power represents the need for parties to submit to one another at an international level, while the representative aspects of our government represents the proper balance of power between the "leader and follower" relationship. Domination of another (individual or country) or subversion of resources for profit are the proper limits to individuals and governments. An "ordered" and "proper" government should be limited if it is to respect proper boundaries around others... This breeds a proper attitude toward others (inidividual and national) that builds trust, which is of major importance in diplomatic efforts.

As Americans, we need to understand that individuality, "the self" is not understood within other contexts, as clearly, as it is within our borders. Western Europe still have the seeds of "tradition" that maintain certain cultural behaviors that have long been lost on America's soil. While this is so, we should affirm the uniqueness of American identity of the individual and their pursuit of "happiness", while disaffirming American consumerism. Individual gifting should not be used to subvert or dominate another's. And when these giftings collide or are at variance in "vision", there needs to be a formulation of addressing the "differences", without disaffirming the values and goals of each individual. This is based on "social contract". American values of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are unique identifying factors and should be promoted universally.

Therefore, the Govermental structure of America affirms the proper order and structure for human flourishing, while America's affirmation of the individual "self" is also a proper value to affirm in "social contract".