Church Gets Less Interesting and Threatening to the Personal

The message this morning was an emphasis on self-reflection, which was "well taken" and the pastor had some good observations about what the world would say to the Church. But, the whole idea of the message was a stumbling block to me. Why?

The message was taken from Jonah. The pastor spoke to the Church, as if the Church was Jonah. Jonah was the "prophet of God" who was running from what "God had called him to do". In the process of running away from God, Jonah causes difficulties to others, due to God's anger shown in a storm, which is capsizing the ship.

Though our minds look for causes, Biblical imagery makes for a pre-sceintific view of reality. When the storm came, it was caused by the "supernatural God" due to "sin". The unbelieving sailors were seeking an answer to their "weather problem" and calling out to "their gods". Jonah is disobeying "God's will" by not sharing "the Gospel". Some believers still believe that there is a direct correlation of cause and effect to "God". This is a primitive understanding of the weather, and an 'intervening God". And understanding "Jonah's predicament" as a direct "message from God" is a little presumptuous, to say the least.

The pastor's point in the sermon was "well taken", though, as he suggested that believers have as much to learn from the "unconverted" as the converted think they have to offer the "unconverted". But, the pastor was still suggesting that there is something "more" to Christianity, than humanism, or humanity. The difference is "holiness", which is a perfection in/of love.

I wonder how this pastor sees this perfection coming about? "Love" is a personal word, and is not a value or does not function in the political realm. The real world functions on "power", and the pastor suggested that those that serve "God" should do so at "great sacrifice". A "God" that demands human sacrifice isn't becoming to me. Such a "God" is a primitive view of "political power". This seems oddly "out of place", when one talks of 'love". He mentioned John Wesley's attempt to convert the 'noble Savages" (the Indians) and his experience at Aldersgate. He suggested that there was some "preparatory work" that had to be done in Wesley's heart before Wesley would be open to an experience such as Aldersgate. The preparation required for Wesley was "failure" in his missionary attempt to convert the Indians.

I find that "perfection" itself is wrongly focused, for whenever one finds themselves "perfected", then is there no more need to grow or become? This is a dangerous idea and belief because it compels those that believe this way to "perform", rather than "be", besides the ideas behind supernaturalism and an intervening "God'.

But, those that believe that they are "called" to a "Divine Destiny" are also a danger, because these believe that what they have to accomplish is mandated by "God Almighty" and it is THEIR responsibility and duty to follow through!!! This belief can damage the peace of the nation, as these will be passionate, and convicted about their "mission". Such zeal was never in our Founder's intent or persona!!! The Founders were level headed and rational.

The bottom line for me, is that people are people. All of us seek significance and value. Some of us find it in religion, and when we do, our identity is caught up in such beliefs. Others find their significance or value within our family or our jobs. Humans are seeking meaning. And "life" in a free society should allow everyone to find meaning however they want to. This is the value of Liberty. And such liberty will bring the nation "happiness" and peace, because we all are agreeing that we might differ in how we answer those questions about meaning and purpose!!!Otherwise, we will find ourselves warring against ourselves and destroying the very thing that allows us the liberty to pursue our own meaning!!!

Individual Interests, and Society's Welfare

Ludwig von Mises Institute‎"Man becomes a social being not in sacrificing his own concerns for the sake of a mythical Moloch, society, but in aiming at an improvement in his own welfare." Ludwig von Mises (1949), Human Action


Those that believe otherwise put society before the individual. Society is made up of individuals who act within a social network. Such societies are free societies that so not seek to circumvent the individual's desire to prosper in all areas of his life!

Is Historical Evolution the Way to Evaluate Everything....?

Evolution is the way that some evaluate everything, but is this the right srtategy for "human flourishing? That is really the question, when one assumes that the "natural" describes everything...as in "wholism" or historicism. The difficulty in thinking in "wholistic" terms, is the problem of "thinking", itself, because "wholism" isn't logical, because everything is interdependent. That becomes a problem for liberty of conscience, because strategy is imperative to "measure success". "Thinking" is only for those who are the elites, others are to "trust and obey" and "do their duty".

Wholism is Eastern thinking, as paradox is embraced, it is dialetical thinking, where a synthesis of opposites creates a supposedly "better" outcome. It is Marxist economics in "human form", or "humans" heralding "Marxist" economical theory or equality. It is the "use" of the "poor" for the sake of "eltie"s "outcomes" and plans...

There is a philosophical dilemma between an "elite" and a "equal" society. This isn't resolvable, if one really wants to affirm the individual, as the individual must determine his own course for his life. But, when some "elite" determines (or strategically plans) how goals are to be accomplished, "the people" aren't enjoined. Theirs is the "right" of serving the interests of "the common good", for universal purposes and human evolution, both personal and corporate.. Egalitarianism is an "ideal", but not practical, as "leadership" is needed if any "goal or outcome" is to be accomplished! Therefore, choose your leaders wisely, as you will suffer the consequences!

The problem is "who is to be the leader" and how do those leaders "see" or understand "elite" and "equal"? Do they believe in liberty of conscience, where individuals are allowed the right to choose, or do they believe in a pre-determining "force" or "wholistic agenda" driven by ignoring those they lead? That is of interest "to all people" who believe and affirm "equality and justice"....as group identity will not lead us in the right direction, as it doesn't leave room for dissent, free thought, or difference....the globe cannot give us any universal..And those that believe in "wholism" are just "selling a bill of good" to those they want to manipulate toward what they believe is "human progress", and human development......Terms need to be defined, if there is to be any "consensus" about meaning.....and meaning is everything in living in a free society!!

Correction of Consequtialism and Utility

Just a short correction to a former post.
Consequtialism is focused on consequences, not "ends". Utility is focused on "ends".

Consequentialism is a form of responsibility for outcomes, while utility is the focus of what is desired as ends.
What is desired sometimes can be dependent on hedonism while other times it is evaluated on virtue.

I think consequentialism cannot be "fair" in the real world, because how do we determine who is responsible for what, or when a society has agreed upon certain actions, or choices? Is leadership then, to be held solely accountable to such choices, that have consequences on others?

As to utility, hedonism should not be an ultimate end in life, but virtue is hard to define or form for another, unless the society values personal choice as to value. Otherwise, utlity ends up being a way to force a particular "form" of virtue upon another. This is a form of co-erciveness in the name of "character training"!

Virtue has to be understood within the context of the individual's values and choice and not an outside "form". Virtue is about innate gifting and development, not controlling another's "outcome". The "outcome" will result whenever there is a focus on the person and their particular personal choice of "ends".

"The Good Is Really the Bad"

Ayn Rand


‎"Let there be no misunderstanding about me. If it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!"
“The Moral Meaning of Capitalism,” For the New Intellectual, 98.

Men seek to subvert others in their pursuits of happiness (values and choice) because they deem it necessary to define the "good life" for you. And it also usually means that their interests supercede yours.
 
Using moral platitudes to undermine another's right to life and liberty is the oldest game in the book. It plays on man's false sense of responsibility, and guilt. Adults are made to frame their own realities and choose for themselves what defines their life, as to purpose.
 
Don't let anyone else control your mind and life.

Self, as Conscious Being

Individuation is the "goal" of parenting and the greatest joy is when the child comes to a sense of themselves and where they want to commit their life. This is an important step in realizing Personhood.

Those that compel or co-erce their children into certain forms of expectation do a disservice to the individual child and their gifts to society. I have been guilty of this, thinking that there was only one purpose or goal of good parenting and that was to get my children "saved" or to "behave properly". These were short-sighted goals and hindered their individality and my personl relationship to them.

Fear and a desire to "fit" into religious communities hindered my ability to engage my children and enjoy their diverse interests. Religion can hinder personal growth and goals, because it can limit perspective. The problem for most of the religious is framing their reality by tightly bound identifiers. Reality is really diverse ways of understanding " all that is". But, science can also be guilty of such manipulation. When science is convinced of its theory, science can become just as "biased" in hindering personal growth and diversity.

"Self" is a conscious being where one's reality is conncected to framing reality that parallels one's sense of self-understanding. And self-understanding has to do with one's culture, one's upbringing, one's personal interests, one's past learning experiences, and one's present  understanding of reality.

In America, "we are a people" because we believe in individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Some in America have stagnated our country's unity by polarizing over individuating arenas, faith and reason.

Scientists have faith IN reason, because reason is one's ability to formulate and organize information. This makes humans distinct from other animals. All humans organize and formulate their realities, academic disciplines do so formally. Religion, on the other hand, has faith in faith. Faith is about cultural framing of reality, which includes outward forms of living in the world, in all of its diversity. American embraces both science and faith as valid ways of living in the world. But, today, America is divided by what used to bring about its unity.

Our Founders understood that humans need room to differ as to faith, but the nation needed a way to unify its diversity, as well. Our Constitution is what has brought about America's self-understanding, as each American is equal under law, with a right to petition government and to be innocent until proven guilty and a right to trial by jury. These are rights that protect and validify our nation's "protections' and value of "individuation". We must not undermine our liberties by undermining our laws, which protect Americans and their "way of life".

Solutions Produce Other Problems

I believe in irreducibly complexity, when it comes to the human animal, therefore, I resist any type of "production" when it comes to the human. I can "see", understand and agree to a certain extint when it comes to the scientific discoveries concerning the human. Humans are just not the same as "matter in motion". And "matter in motion" is what some would value, as to action/behavior. Alturism is their goal, as life is without "hope" for those deemd to live in the lower caste status. Does such social engineering salve the conscience of the "elite" because of their "good intentions"?

Alturism has been of interest to scientists of late, because of "social Darwininism" and the concern for social control/order. But, control/order is a problem itself, as whenever we seek to control,, even with alturistic intentions, then we also limit and define. Limitation and definition of "goods" or social goals, inevitably leads to 'government regulation" which inhibits creativity and growth. Government regulation is not a liberal ideal. And liberal ideals are what made our country great and protected the value of the individual.

Individuals have their own dreams, destinies and desires to fulfill. And those that appealled to this human need, have "won the race" in our elections. Americans believe in the value of individual liberty in regards to life. And no one should define or limit another's life.

When Liberty Should Be Limited

Liberty is limited by law in free societies, as law defines and determines what is illegal or criminal behavior. But, what "Should" be limited?

Government should be limited according to our Founding Fathers. Governments intrude upon individual liberties. Therefore, governments should limit by law, what should be protected.  Government should protect indivdiual values to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Life is to be protected. Property is to be protected. And privacy is to be protected. Whenever these protections are ignored or devalued, then we devalue individuality.

Murder, theft, and privacy are crimes against individuality. The individual has a right to own his own life in Western society. And this is why so many seek to come to our shores. We value opportunity for the individual.

Globalists Agenda and the Demise of Western Civilization

History is impacted by the latest philosophy, that impacts its academic climate. The Academy has power that has shaped the "color" and thinking of the young. And this is an important aspect to understand critically.

Today's academic is geared toward global concerns, as this is what is important if one is to remain relevant. The world has become globalized through our interconnections of communication and commerce. How have the global concerns impacted the Academy?

I think that the globalist has sought to undermine the nation-state status and the identification factors that define the citizen.

America's citizen is defined by the Constitution. And the Constitution has been understood in the liberal Academy as a 'living document" that must speak to the present condition, that being the global. The Constitution becomes irrelavant in such a context, because it limits and defines people that distinguish themselves. Distinction has become defined as discrimination, because if anyone dares to make a statement about citizen rights, then one is making claims above another 'human'. The argument becomes absurd.

But, the Academy cannot stop at the 'human' but with any living entity, because the Academy has come to understand our "interdependence" on all kinds of life. There becomes little distinction or way to define value about life, because all life is necessary. Ethical values are undermined because we dissolve again one distinction from another.

I think that America is experiencing its crisis because of such thinking. The "social" has trumped the individual. Society itself it the ultimate value, instead of individual liberty. The indivdual is only defined by his social context, and not by his own values, choices, and innatedness.

I agree with those that are angry about what is being done in the name of "right", the "moral imperative", or "moral concern". Whose "right", "moral imperative" or 'moral concern"?

Americans believe we are defined by our Constitution that has granted the citizen certain rights of liberty. The social agenda of the globalists, socialists, or the naturalists is NOT what has defined American values. And this is the problem, I think. We have been a people that have been identified by our ideals, that have created an environment that has prospered the individual's choice of value, resulting in the prosperity and liberty in our society.

Today, the very liberty that has brought about our prosperity is in danger. The few have been corrupted and America as a whole must pay. We haven't understood ourselves in this way. It is a hard awakening. But, awake we must be!

"Human" and the Citizen

Much has been "thrown out" on the radio and T.V. concerning the recent immigration problem. The discussion, I think, can be boiled down to two views on what it means to be a "person", or "human" versus a citizen.

Humans are by nature social animals. A Dateline special illustrated how individuals have "herd mentalities". In an elevator where Dateline employees were told to turn with their backs to the elevator door, everyone in the "studies" mimiced the "group". People do not question, for the most part.

But, today's crisis forefronts the problem of what it means to be human! Americans are identified with certain liberties that are defined and protected by our Constitution. And lately, it seems that our government has not been forthcoming in protecting our literal boundaries, which has caused a crisis in our identified boundaries. Civil liberties have been for the most part understood to be for those that live within certain geographical borders.

Boundaries are identifiers of persons. These are various complexions of an individual's social world. And some believe that all individuals deserve rights under "natural law", these are the "humanists" and globalists. The "human" is what defines the individual. Others believe that societies construct individuals with their particular laws, which maintain distinctions and underlie a person's "real identity". These believe that the various social groups define the individual, as to identity.

The problem, as I understand it, is can a "human" be a person, as persons need social contexts to define themselves. Or do they? Does an individual understand himself apart from social groups? I think that they can. Humans are reasonable animals. We seek to rationalize our existance. This is the way we cope and understand the world.

America has understood itself to be a nation ruled by law. The Constitution defined our 'union", and protected its citizens rights. But, a Constitutional government is representative of its people. The people (identified as Americans) are warring over their right to exist apart from invasion from outsiders. These outsiders threaten society through their crime and a dissolution of boundaries which breeds fear and anxiety over their "identified way of life".

Therefore, the 'human' is the lowest denominator for identification purposes. Citizens understand themselves in more definitive ways. And those that live in civilized Western societies understand themselves as a person in his own right. Americans come to understand themselves apart from the former contexts of identification, but may choose to become identified to these social groups for other reasons.

All humans are social animals, but the social animal is not civilized without society's impact. And society's impact is not an ultimate value, as the individual himself needs to develop beyond the dependent stage on society. The individuals allowed such liberty come to understand themselves and their own values apart from the greater whole, and can come to find their own place for themselves.

Character versus Unwarranted Suffering...

Many Christians think that God is the Blessed Controller of All things. This is an absurd proposition. Because humans are the ones who make or break what is in human government.

Our Founders understood that the individual had natural rights, that undergird what we now understand to be human rights. Without these rights, governments, which are forms of leadership oppress individuals.

There seems to be a movement abreast about social conscioussness, social awareness, or collectivism, because this is a way to subvert individual's their right under law.

Government does NOT exist without leadership and leadership should ONLY be given to those who have won the right to lead....and individuals willl vary as to what requirements determine that right of leadership. But, it hinges on TRUST!

The right to leadership is where our values play into our decisions in voting and political engagement. In free societies, we wil all never agree, but we are allowed a 'voice' and rightfully so. If we have been dismissed or have not had a voice, then we are free to move elsewhere or associate with others who are more like-minded. This is what our liberty is about. And our Founders won it for us with the shedding of their blood. We should never take it for granted.

Stand up America for the values of liberty. We cannot allow domination in any form in our leaders. I look forward to seeing what tomorrow may bring when the "tea parties" have had their say!!!

What Does a Good Citizen Do?

What does a good citizen do? That question could be answered in various ways, depending on how one understand the individual and society.

A good citizen is defined by individuals based on certain values they hold. Do they hold liberty as the ultimate social value or is society itself of ultimate value and concern. The latter are more socialistic in thier view politically.

The political ideal for the socialist is equality of property versus an elitist view that supports capital and investments and individual initiative.

Religion has been useful to serve the ends of socialist's agendas. But religion itself is a question of value. Does one believe that the world was "caused"? Is God personal or an abstraction? Should someone act in faith without evidence? Or should one base their decisions on reason alone?

Is society the basis of values, or is there a moral theist view about society?

Are individual's free, or determined and how hard is the determination? What determines an individual, genetics, or environment? Can someone be held accountable to actions that are beyond his control because of a genetic predisposition or environmental conditioning? What is justice, then?

Is justice or morality relative, or are they absolute? Multiculturalism would uphold a relativistic view, but international law, human rights activists, and the Founding Fathers believed that all people were created with certain inalienable rights, the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Is happiness the only ultimate value, or are there a "world of values" in a pluralistic view?

Where people answer these questions will determine their commitments and behavior in certain situations.

Humans are thinkers, whether they think so or not. They are always being influenced by the things they read, hear or see. And in free societies, we allow most any information to be sorted by the individual's free determination. But, the value question comes in, as to what sort of information is productive? Should there be an evaluation of what is productive based on what society wants the outcome to be? And organist view of society would believe so, as would the socialist and moral theist.

But, if one thinks of society as a social contract, one will come to different conclusions than one who thinks of society as an organism, itself. The individual will be of uptmost importance because he, the individual cannot be dissolved into his function in society alone. He is a human being, who has his own desires, purposes and goals, which should never be stolen.

A social contract view of society affirms individuals making an agreement about their affliation with society in a certain culture. This is what makes for liberty, in regards to choices about one's life commitments, and values. "Big Brother' does not determine what one should or should not to in the speicific choices of vocation or mate selection. And this is what has made America great because the individual is motivated by his own goals, for his own life. He owns his life, no one owns it for
Life cannot be lived fully without the freedom to choose and be in the world as one comes to understand the world. And as one understands that many in the world do not have the choice or right of individuality, and live in fear of torture or torment from government or religion, one comes to value the American ideals of individuality and liberty.

What I Hate to Think

What I hate to think is that God is reduced to the "common Gospel"...
or the "common ideal"....

What I hate to think is that man is reduced to obedience, instead of rational choice....
or "devalued part"....

What I hate to think is that the individual is only understood within his function...
apart from his function, he ceases to exist....

Christians need to cease being "Christian", giving advice, and having all the answers....and knowing what "the Kingdom entails", and what God's will for everyone is...
Christians need to learn how to be, before any "doing"....

As Christians are foremost humans and maybe when they understand how to be "more" human, then they will cease to be "Christians"....

And I will cease hating to think....

Justice, Just Is

Justice just is. What do I mean by this?

Some view justice as transforming society into a 'new reality'. These are change agents, which view justice as a social construction. These social justice types view the law as a positive.

While the "social justice" types view the law as a positive, the "self-governing types" view the law as a negative. They view the law as protecting "rights". These view individual conscience and liberty of opinion as "moral".

Today on NPR, I listened to a Harvard professor, Sandel. He was discussing his book, "Justice". He had a number of terms that I disagreed with. Terms such as solidarity, and "the common good". His view sounded socialistic or communistic to me. He did acknowledge that there was another view; an individual and free market view.

As I consider myself an individualist, I do not value the terms of "solidarity" or the "common good".

Our Founding Fathers viewed the individual with "certain inalienable rights", the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don't think that defining these terms in a monistic way is allowing for individual differences of opinion and conscience. Our Founding Fathers granted us liberty of expression and differences of opinion in theBill of Rights.

Kohlburg in his stages of moral development understood that the convetional level of justice was defined by the "status quo" or social groupism. The "self-actualized" conscience is a reasoned or principled conscience. Don't we want the highest standard to represent our society?

Since we are a Representative Republic, we value the individual voter's opinons, or at least, in principle. We are a government for the people and by the people. Justice is reprentative, and not a "dictatorship". History has all kinds of examples of oppressive regimes that limit individuality based on solidarity or the 'common good'.

C.S. Lewis in "Mere Christianity" viewed the human as having an innate sense of justice. Individuals know when they are being taken advantage of. Our laws protect these "rights" from other's greed, coveteousness, and unlawful confiscation. America affirm property rights.

I believe because humans are endowed with an innate nature of justice that doing injustice is what our country stood against. And this is why we are a country that is ruled by law.

I believe that there are many ways of "being good", and we should not define another's good for them.

Do Values Determine One's Paradigmic Understanding?

I have been thinking a lot about our American Government and the values it upholds. This is probably timely, as July 4th is just aroung the corner. We, Americans, "hold these truth to be evident, that all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights".This implies that each person's understanding and values are to be commended, as a "right". But, what determines their "understanding"? Education and culture.

Culture is a frame of reference, which determines the most important values of a person. In our free society, the individual is "free" to determine his own life. It is called "self-government". Our Constitution limits our government from overt determination or covert suppression, in a number of areas; privacy, religion, freedom of expression (speech, press, assembly). Individuality marks the American experiment.

But, Americans determine their own values in various ways. Some Americans adhere to an exclusive religious claim and gain and maintain their identity through the group's approved norms. Others Americans gain their values from their specified "cultural location". These values all influence the individual's own values and determine how he views the world and life, in general.

Education in our American society has been public, private, and religiously based. Each has its own constituencies. And each has its emphasis. While private and religiously based education has been privately funded, public education has not. We believe in the right of everyone to have an education. There is no "elite class" or "tracking system" as in European countries. A lack of "tracking or limiting" education to those who are "fit" for it has its downsides, as well as its opportunities. But, Americans believe in equality of each individual to choose his place of education.

Education has been valued for its ability to prepare others for a vocation/job, as Americans are pragmatists. Pragmatism has had its impact on American opportunity, irregardless of 'fit". In Europe, education is deemed to be a service to society. Those who have higher IQ's are deemed "fit" to fulfill a certain role or function in society. These are the ones who are tracked to attend the "gymnasium" high school and later to attend the publically funded universities.

Professors are considered highly in European society, whereas, educators are not valued, on the whole in American society. Americans like their entertainment, after working their jobs to earn their living. They don't seem to care to think about "values" or if "values" are important to address as to change. Americans are open, generous, and self-focused, for the most part, because they are naive'.

Perhaps, because America is so large and many do not travel extensively and even when we do, we don't go out of our country to understand the 'wider world". Cultural differences don't exist because we are a diverse country and "anything goes", while Europeans can be in another country and hear another language and experience another culture in a matter of a few hours drive. Most Europeans are exposed to differences, in a different way, than Americans are.

So, when Americans talk of values, then we are a people who define ourselves, by the multiplicity of opportunities, and "cultures" we can be a part of. American identity is as diverse as the American population. And the individual's values are developed within a diverse, open and free society that should value critical thinking more than it does.

Freedom Comes From Self- Knowledge

A philosopher once said that an unexamined life is a life not worth living. I think this is a truth that is pertinant for today. This afternoon, my son in law, whose degree is in psychology, gave us a personality test. I had taken this test before and it didn't "sit well" with me, as far as the results. It just didn't seem like it "fit' or was comfortable. I asked the tester back then, if stress or extenuating circumstances would affect the answers and therefore the results. I know now, that it does.

After taking the test, and reading the results, I felt relieved and "okay". I am a "General". My childern all agreed that this was who I was/am. I had been thinking that there was a "perfect" or "ideal" Christian. That is NOT so...and it is freeing to know that how I am, is what I am supposed to be. Religion is very deforming, in its conforming stance, and demanding "change" because one is not "perfect" or "ideal" like Jesus.

Religion can be a form of mental illness, I think. It hinders self-acceptance, and creates another reality, instead of dealing with the real, and pertinent. It seeks to attain something that is alien to the natural person, some spiritual sense or spirituality that is not based in the 'real world".

So, on this Mother's Day, it is okay that children are not my "ideal goal". And as I wrote before, I don't care about politically correct things, and many times I don't care about religiously correct things. If that is okay with you, then maybe we can be friends. Otherwise, we must go our separate ways. No guilt, as Paul and Barnabas went their separate ways and that seemed okay for the writers of "your authority".

Problems for the West

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Individualism and Collectivism

Tomorrow I get to lead a discussion after viewing a video on DNA, personhood, and human nature. In thinking and preparing for it, I began thinking about DNA sequencing.

The video features, Watson, who was one of the scientists that discovered DNA. He suggests that the decisions that we make about DNA should ultimately be of value to society.

While initially, I wasn't thinking about the "theories" of collectivism and individualism as being related to his ultimate goal; I find that they are profoundly related. He didn't dismiss any type of human configuring or manipulation of DNA, IF it was good for society. But, how does he determine what is good for society, except what the individual can add to society? The individual is not valued in his "economy", as is the case with any collectivist.

My Greatest Commitment

I wanted to state in writing that my greatest commitment is to freedom and justice for all. Justice cannot transpire without freedom, because without freedom one is limited in what one thinks, does, says, or is. These are formulated in our Bill of Rights. Therefore, I am committed to these values first and foremost, which have underwritten our civic liberties.

Some would think that serving "ideals" such as freedom and justice is less than what religion requires, because religion is first and foremost about the practice of religion. While people are a value, without the battle of ideas for freedom, as our Founding Fathers recognized, there is no freedom for the individual. Therefore, I am about standing for the ideals of freedom and justice within government.

Government is a form of bringing about "unity" and boundary matienence. Boundary matienence is what laws protect, but should not be used to subvert the freedom or interests of another, as this would be the improper use of law. Government should protect the rights of each and every individual in a free society. This is what has made our country great.

Freedom to be, to do, to become, to delight, to enjoy, to ponder....these are the things of a free society, which began the American Experiment and has brought about many fascinating and unique discoveries.

So, I am not first and foremost committed to religion, but to free government, because self-governance is where one learns to become, not from the outside, but from the inside.

And if there is a "god" and I believe there must be, then there is creativity, as well as form and structure. Form and structure, which defines government and law, cannot squelsh the creative spirit of individual expression and still be a free government.

The State as a Means and an Ultimate Value

The State in free societies is to protect individuals, and groups from undue intrusion into private spheres. Some do not believe that separation of powers between State and religion is a good thing. I disagree.

Thomas Jefferson made a distinction between behavior, which should be ruled by law, and belief, which is not. Behavior impacts another's life, while belief is a personal matter. Some in our country would argue that one's beliefs cannot be fully held without legislating these beliefs, because they underwrite what defines morality. While this is true of some beliefs, even these convictions must be open to discussion, where the "free market" determines what transpires "under law". This is a just society that takes into account all members convictions, tries them in the public square, and votes on them in free elections. The result are our represetatives, who legislate our laws, but must be collegial to other opinions. It is what civil discourse is all about. There should be no personal attacks.

Some in the past, such as the Puritans of old, believed that theirs was a "commonwealth" under God, as revealed in Scripture. While this view had some virtues, it also held many vices. Their understanding of revelation was within a text, which is a human construct. It was the Church who decided what was to be contained in the canon. The Puritans, though, understood the text and Church in purely spiritual terms. It was a supernaturalism that called for an absolute obedience to the "rules" constructed by the Church or in the text. Theirs was not a free society of conscience, but one of enforcement of "law and order". While there is value to "law and order", there was much done in the name of "law and order" that subverted God's natural design in humankind. Dogma became the "law of the land", where Puritans held trials convicting those who did not adhere to their understanding or interpretaion of revelation (god). The same happens in Islamic countries under Shairia law. This is not justice.

Because humans are social animals and desire to belong to some group for identification, social collegiality, etc., I believe many people "conformed" to the "tradition" of Puritanism, and some even psychologically responded to "revivalistic sermons" to their felt need. Many others have suffered under the repression and oppression of such types of communities. Their understanding was a group identification that held many duties over their congregants. I find this disturbing.

While humans are social animals, there is something unhealthy about adult super dependence on others for identity. There are some cultures that thrive on group identification, but not so, in America. While there is a need for the child and young person to develop within social contexts and adults continue to change in their roles and understanding of themselves, individuation is necessary for one's personal "fulfillment" or maturity. This is not valued in some societies. While America's freedoms have allowed the fullness of individuation, it has also hindered our values of communal fellowship. This is because our way of life is so stressed and structured around work. Job opportunities call for moving across the country and a dissolution of family responsibilities.

The modern State, as we find it, still upholds the values of the individual conscience, while maintaining "law and order" so that individuals can live their lives in relative peace. Our Founding Fathers understood natural rights, as a creation order and structuring, where man would flourish most effieciently. The freedom to "be" and "become" are the values that America values and should be one of our ultimate value for it breeds a repsect for others in their individuation. And respect is about justice and value of another's life.