This is to be Rapture Day! Is anyone really disappointed, or fearful that they have been "left behind"? Why would people or anyone believe that one could really "know" these things? Because they have faith! Faith sanctions MANY unreasonable, foolish, and unwise thoughts, actions, convictions, and opinions! But people of Faith cannot be torn away from their "personal experience" which affirms their context!
These were "born into" a biblical worldview, where Scripture trumps every other kind of knowledge or information! Such an experience can be understood as a transformation, or coversion that makes a difference in how the "world and all that is" is understood. The denominations that affirm such experiences run the gambit from revivalists, holiness, evangelicals, pentecostals, and religious cults of all kinds. Human have religious experiences. This is a fact, but the interpretation of that experience differs. Those within social groups that sanction and affirm such experiences, have self-affirming contexts and collective identities. They can't or won't see any other view, as their view is so tightly wound around "who they know themselves to be".
The danger in such an identity is to the "self" and to the larger world. The "self" of the child raised in such a context is limited by seeking the experience, or depending on experience, or using reason to understand his preferred "worldview" which is the Bible or the Prophet. "Self" isn't understood or seen in a larger dimension than a religious/spiritual one, so "self" will never understand larger issues, problems or complexities in the world.
The larger world is endangered because such people might think that "God" desires to convert the world, and these do damage to the nation-state's sensitive diplomatic efforts. Other cultures are prone to "war" when their understanding is threatened. But, those of "Faith" don't see the danger. They only believe that "God" can do the impossible and that "God" is on their side! Such thinking and behavior is seen as disrespectful of another's interests, though "self interests" hides behind "God". Religious people don't think, they just believe and act on such belief! A dangerous stance toward the world and others.
Besides diplomacy, these can be a thorn in the side of Academics. Such people KNOW what the text means and says, they don't believe in education. They believe in the Holy Spirit as "God's trainer, teacher and friend". It becomes a spiritualized mysticism that is hard to break. Their "personal relationship" is all that matters, because they have found "The Truth" for all times and all people! This way of thinking becomes a danger to society, becasue such believe that the "biblical worldview" should be applied to all of life, which means ethics.
Biblical ethics is an ideal, but cannot be applied without leaving one's head in the sand or "at the door". Pacifists, and self-annilhilation are understood, by some, as the best way to love one's neighbor, but is not loving to oneself. Pacifism doesn't see the real world and make assessments about when the "evil" must be confronted. And self-anilhilation does nothing for the "other" in resisting what must be resisted or confronting what needs confronting. Accountability is not seen as a neccessity.
"Self" whether one's natural tendency is agressive or passive is sanctioned under the experience of "God" and not seen for what it is and equality under law should be held as accountability for the aggressive and the passive. One sees themselves as the "leader", "Prophet", or "specially annointed", while the other meekly submits to self annilhilation and hatred. It emboldens evil and it destroys justice.
Faith is not something that humans should base their lives on in the real world. The real world works in the way it works and it is best to start to understand what that is, and how that is defined. The Academy is the first place to begin, then one can approach the world, self, and the other with more amnunition than just "have faith", or "just believe".
Showing posts with label justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label justice. Show all posts
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Self-Ownership, Libertariansim and Christianity
In a discussion with a friend today, I began to think that the issue of self-ownership, which is a principle of liberty, and libertariansim is at odds with conservative Christian thinking. But self-ownership underwrites the principle of individuality, which is of primary importance if we want to defend private property!
Self-ownership is at odds to Christian thinking because "we are God's workmanship created in Christ Jesus"...."we are no longer our own", 'we are bondservants", etc. etc. God "owns" the indivdiual in Church terms, at least the consecrated ones (Present your bodies as a living sacrifice"). This is athema to the principle of self-governance, and self-ownership and choice. But it is not in opposition to those who believe that humans are to steward the earth and be responsible for it.
The Founders and the Enlightenment believed that we should own private property That people should be rewarded for their labors. No longer was there to be a ruling class that owned all the property, but men could create their own wealth by choosing how they would steward their gifts and talents. The individual mattered when it came to their personal decision about how to live their life and provide for their family.
The individual mattered when it came to issues of justice. Justice is defined within contexts, but is the basis of law. Law is to limit and to define boundaries around appropriate behavior in given contexts. When people respect the law, then there are no victims of crime. Crime is disregarding the law, or boundaries around entities that are supposed to remain separated. The individual being the smallest segment of society, so said Thomas Jefferson. In our country we value the 'personal' or the private, because we value the individual and diversity of opinion. We are freethinkers in America, at least at the Founding.
Today, America has become defined by evangelicalism, which is a broad based "heart" experience of "personal relationship" with the Transcendent. The problem is that the foundation of such a movement was fundamentalism, which was resistant to the Academy, and learning itself outside the context of Scripture. Scripture was "God's infallible and inspired Word" which was to guide and guard all of life. What began in our Founders eyes as an experiment of justice and liberty, became defined by a Text that didn't allow for free thinking. Science was viewed as a threat to such a book, because of evolution, and the dismissal of the creation account.
Now, we see our political climate wrought with wars and rumors of wars over whether the definition of the text should be socialized, i.e. humanitarian endeavors, or spiritualized, i.e. guiding life and the political process. It is disheartening to say the least that Americans cannot enjoy the liberties we have in our diversity. But, when things are seen as "God's rightful rule", then, it can become a little uncomfortable!
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that might threaten the fundamentalists because it allows or risks, which might be in opposition to what is considered "God's Command" (The Divine Command Theory). Liberty for such people makes for anxiety because they are so zealous to see "God's Kingdom" come to pass, or bringing in the Kingdom.
Though libertarianism could become libertinism, it doesn't have to, as such a philosophy allows for respect and dignity to diverse views in the public square. Such respect should be the environment of civility and an ability to reason for what American's policy should be about and for....and that calls for self-governance most of all, because of respecting the "other" while disagreeing.
I have hope for America that her people will be grateful for liberty and practice it in their interaction with others, believing (for those that believe) that God can see and know the heart of man and it is only his right to make the judgements ultimately, and for those who feel overly responsible to remember that it was a diverse group of men that created our "Republic", so we don't all have to see things in the same way.
Self-ownership is at odds to Christian thinking because "we are God's workmanship created in Christ Jesus"...."we are no longer our own", 'we are bondservants", etc. etc. God "owns" the indivdiual in Church terms, at least the consecrated ones (Present your bodies as a living sacrifice"). This is athema to the principle of self-governance, and self-ownership and choice. But it is not in opposition to those who believe that humans are to steward the earth and be responsible for it.
The Founders and the Enlightenment believed that we should own private property That people should be rewarded for their labors. No longer was there to be a ruling class that owned all the property, but men could create their own wealth by choosing how they would steward their gifts and talents. The individual mattered when it came to their personal decision about how to live their life and provide for their family.
The individual mattered when it came to issues of justice. Justice is defined within contexts, but is the basis of law. Law is to limit and to define boundaries around appropriate behavior in given contexts. When people respect the law, then there are no victims of crime. Crime is disregarding the law, or boundaries around entities that are supposed to remain separated. The individual being the smallest segment of society, so said Thomas Jefferson. In our country we value the 'personal' or the private, because we value the individual and diversity of opinion. We are freethinkers in America, at least at the Founding.
Today, America has become defined by evangelicalism, which is a broad based "heart" experience of "personal relationship" with the Transcendent. The problem is that the foundation of such a movement was fundamentalism, which was resistant to the Academy, and learning itself outside the context of Scripture. Scripture was "God's infallible and inspired Word" which was to guide and guard all of life. What began in our Founders eyes as an experiment of justice and liberty, became defined by a Text that didn't allow for free thinking. Science was viewed as a threat to such a book, because of evolution, and the dismissal of the creation account.
Now, we see our political climate wrought with wars and rumors of wars over whether the definition of the text should be socialized, i.e. humanitarian endeavors, or spiritualized, i.e. guiding life and the political process. It is disheartening to say the least that Americans cannot enjoy the liberties we have in our diversity. But, when things are seen as "God's rightful rule", then, it can become a little uncomfortable!
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that might threaten the fundamentalists because it allows or risks, which might be in opposition to what is considered "God's Command" (The Divine Command Theory). Liberty for such people makes for anxiety because they are so zealous to see "God's Kingdom" come to pass, or bringing in the Kingdom.
Though libertarianism could become libertinism, it doesn't have to, as such a philosophy allows for respect and dignity to diverse views in the public square. Such respect should be the environment of civility and an ability to reason for what American's policy should be about and for....and that calls for self-governance most of all, because of respecting the "other" while disagreeing.
I have hope for America that her people will be grateful for liberty and practice it in their interaction with others, believing (for those that believe) that God can see and know the heart of man and it is only his right to make the judgements ultimately, and for those who feel overly responsible to remember that it was a diverse group of men that created our "Republic", so we don't all have to see things in the same way.
Monday, May 16, 2011
To Those That Believe........
Those that believe are defined by their various religious contexts and these contexts are defined by "holy books" and "holy people". Men always seem to like to follow the leader. The difference in a free society, is that one can choose which leader one will follow. That is key to understanding our political freedoms; Choice as an ultimate value for defining one's life.
Some think that since leaders are called to lead, then those who are to follow must do so without question, as "fate" is "God's will" and it shows deference to "God" and Others in whatever happens.
Such a sermon I heard recently, that admonished the believer to have personal faith and to do their disciplines in secret, not as the hypocrits do. The preacher admonished the flock that God knows and sees, so we don't have to perform or please others. We are only to please God. This is good advice to those that choose to believe, otherwise, people will continually be playing to those that have power, so they can get to the top. In the process, they step on another's toes, so to speak and disorder of all kinds occurs! It is human nature to pursue one's own interests and such as it should be, as long as it is done within the bounds of lawful behavior.
To those that believe, I have hope that you will not allow others to trample your life under their cloven hooves. I hope to see you resist those that are such "pigs". I don't believe in pacifism. I think that thinking that passive good with overcome agressive evil is hopelessly naive! But, I have watched and read about such "saints", but question if this is to be a norm for change? Certainly, those in power would want passivity as it concerns resistance, that way, they can continue in their abuse without any recrimnations. (Our country would have never had a war over taxation without representation, if that had been their perspective!)...
Passivity toward unjust circumstances speaks of character, because these have to practice "self-control" and humility and such character had Jesus, who represents the "ultimate Chrstian model". I don't respect scapegoating, sabatoging another's life, etc.And this is what actually happened according to the text. And those that believe in a historical Jesus must adhere to such religious practices and beliefs.
How can believers think that his life was the epitome of "morality", because he overcame evil with good? How did his life represent the "ideal" for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? It did because he was subservient to his "Father". Subservient and passive enough to face death on a cross, the Christian symbol!! But, one can only believe that Jesus' life was an "ideal", if they believe in a supernatural world to come where justice will be met out and all things restored and people will be rewarded accordingly. I wonder if the pastor meant that one should not seek to please "God"? No, because he said that this was man's purpose to "please God". But, I wonder then, if he meant we were to serve "God' unto death? That is the Christian belief? God wants our life sacrificed to "His Cause"! That sounds like an ogre to me!But, we are to love this demanding, controlling, and heartless God, because he loves us, personally. And the "sufferings of this present life will not be comparable to the glory that is to be revealed"!! That is Church "speak" for the abuses of Church power.
But, believers believe that anyone who "looses his life for My Sake and the Kingdom, will be rewarded in the life to come".. Believers believe in a coming Judgment Day and some believe it will come soon on May 21st, just as believers have always looked and hoped for. Continue to believe, then, and give up your lives for others to trample under their feet. This is your "lot" in life and where you, "Fit"!...And continue to believe that 'God" deems it as "good to and for you", because he loves you!!!
Some think that since leaders are called to lead, then those who are to follow must do so without question, as "fate" is "God's will" and it shows deference to "God" and Others in whatever happens.
Such a sermon I heard recently, that admonished the believer to have personal faith and to do their disciplines in secret, not as the hypocrits do. The preacher admonished the flock that God knows and sees, so we don't have to perform or please others. We are only to please God. This is good advice to those that choose to believe, otherwise, people will continually be playing to those that have power, so they can get to the top. In the process, they step on another's toes, so to speak and disorder of all kinds occurs! It is human nature to pursue one's own interests and such as it should be, as long as it is done within the bounds of lawful behavior.
To those that believe, I have hope that you will not allow others to trample your life under their cloven hooves. I hope to see you resist those that are such "pigs". I don't believe in pacifism. I think that thinking that passive good with overcome agressive evil is hopelessly naive! But, I have watched and read about such "saints", but question if this is to be a norm for change? Certainly, those in power would want passivity as it concerns resistance, that way, they can continue in their abuse without any recrimnations. (Our country would have never had a war over taxation without representation, if that had been their perspective!)...
Passivity toward unjust circumstances speaks of character, because these have to practice "self-control" and humility and such character had Jesus, who represents the "ultimate Chrstian model". I don't respect scapegoating, sabatoging another's life, etc.And this is what actually happened according to the text. And those that believe in a historical Jesus must adhere to such religious practices and beliefs.
How can believers think that his life was the epitome of "morality", because he overcame evil with good? How did his life represent the "ideal" for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? It did because he was subservient to his "Father". Subservient and passive enough to face death on a cross, the Christian symbol!! But, one can only believe that Jesus' life was an "ideal", if they believe in a supernatural world to come where justice will be met out and all things restored and people will be rewarded accordingly. I wonder if the pastor meant that one should not seek to please "God"? No, because he said that this was man's purpose to "please God". But, I wonder then, if he meant we were to serve "God' unto death? That is the Christian belief? God wants our life sacrificed to "His Cause"! That sounds like an ogre to me!But, we are to love this demanding, controlling, and heartless God, because he loves us, personally. And the "sufferings of this present life will not be comparable to the glory that is to be revealed"!! That is Church "speak" for the abuses of Church power.
But, believers believe that anyone who "looses his life for My Sake and the Kingdom, will be rewarded in the life to come".. Believers believe in a coming Judgment Day and some believe it will come soon on May 21st, just as believers have always looked and hoped for. Continue to believe, then, and give up your lives for others to trample under their feet. This is your "lot" in life and where you, "Fit"!...And continue to believe that 'God" deems it as "good to and for you", because he loves you!!!
Monday, April 11, 2011
Funny How Christians "Use" Language
We all use language to communicate. But, though many of us can use "words", we do not know how to communicate. What is Communication?
Communication means that one understands a context and the history that affects "meaning". This is how the "Christian" uses language "to fix" or "redeem" (this is their theoogical term) the world. Such language is useful to get "believers to agree" and co-operate "with God's purposes, as Goe's purposes are assumed to be "about the world". But, is it just manipulation of language for certain purposes? When in reality, what is desired is certain behavior for certain outcomes or goals of personal interests or concern to leadership? These goals are defined within contexts, themselves.
Groups like to scapegoat. The Christian scapegoats "God", all groups think that "justice" is "their view" in a particular context and God 'is on their side". This is how the Church theologized "Christ" as the unifier of the world. Christ was scapegoated for one group's sins against another group of people. Group reality is not 'human development", but one identification factor to a particlar indivdiual.
In reality, groups are formed and framed by social, legal, moral, and interests factors. These factors support individuals and their view of themself and "life". Groups can be "causes" or "interests", or "pursuits" or "goals". But, all formal groups are framed with certain unifying by-laws, written or un-written.
Communication between groups can be hard because interests, views, and commitments vary. And some of a group's assumptions about 'reality" are not readily understood. This is when diplomatic efforts are made to make for peaceful resolution. Resolutions are "peace treaties". Apart from negotiation, there is no "justice", and wars are made from such offenses/differences of values.
The West believes that the individual has a right to representation and trial by jury. One is not guilty until proven innocent. These protections allow the individual liberty of conscience, as to values and commitments. "Justice", in this regard, has to do with rights. And rights are what make for the "human"/humane environment of the West. The individual is not required to submit to speicifications about their life and its commitments. Group interests are to be negotiated with private individuals.
Christians like to define their group on the "language of theology", instead of understanding that Christianity itself is fraught with differences that are based on "language". What does "sin" mean? The definition will depend on how one understands "salvation", the Church, human/individual development, ulitmate purposes, practical realities, and contexts. This is where the "universalization of language" can be "defeating" to bringing "justice", because people understand terms differently. And such complexity makes it hard to bridge the communication gap.
People live within their understandings of the world. In the West, we believe that equality under law, protects the indivdual from hierarchal forms of co-ercion, but , religious groups understand that hierarchy 'honors God". Therefore, the individual is diminished and devalued, "in the light of God". During the Roman Empire Ceasars (or leaders over the government) were considered to be "gods". Christians were first thought to be atheists in this climate, because they resisted "earthly power". So, whether the Christian thinks that earthly government or 'spiritual governmant has primacy, it interferes with a universal view on government, as to "faith".
"Self-respect" and personal commitments are not values to many religious communities, because the individual is only 'a part" of the "whole" and the whole is more valuable. This view is a communal or societal view. Paul said this in his analogy of the Body of Christ and interdependence. While interdependence is a fact of life, dependence is when hierarchal views are held and diminish the indivdiual within the corporate. This is 'injustice", because "the heads" or the corporation pre-determine without considering the "parts" that are needed to carry out their "plans". Such behavior disrespects/dishonors the individuals, who are to be a part of the team, for each team member must be aware to the specifics of the "goal" and know the part they play to be able to commit and carry out the plan. And sometimes the member may not value the goal, and this is when the member is free to consider other options and the "heads" can find a replacement.
It is interesting that individuals all have an innate sense of justice, because we all want to be valued and respected, unless there has been an environment that did not develop proper boundaries in the child.. Self-respect is the first and foremost foundation of coming to terms in 'just relationships. Otherwise, "self" is seen as "selfishness", and run over by those that cease to understand their own selfishness! Self-interest is the basis of our capitalistic system, and "self-interests" supports the view of the Christian or the naturalists. Men are viewed as "fallen" or "fighting for survival". "Fallen" and Survival" also has many definitions, such definitions make for "life". How are we to understand 'life"?
The Christian likes to spiritualize terms, such as "life". Life is about "God:", instead of man. But, when these terms are united, the reality of "the god/man", we have a man fully developed. The Christian would term it 'in God's image". Such human development does not have to be "spiritual", as man is a physical entity. His brain responds to stimuli and interprets such stimuli in cerain ways. This is why communication is complex, because man's mind is different from his brain.
Minds can be "formed" by certain social conditioning. Such is the Christian's attempt to "condition" through "moral education". But, usually, the Church has certain "goals" that are limiting the definition of such "education of character", which is "Jesus" life, as revealed in Scriptures. Such a life was not respected, honored, or considered as in our Western concept of "justice". Should the West continue to promote such "education", as Christian character? Or should the Church cease in trying to use "language" to get humans to agree to "denying self-interest"? Should individuals allow the Chruch to abuse them under a hierarchal view of power? Is the Church justified in "making disciples", when the Church acts unjustly, according to our Constitutonal governent? Is the Church above the law, because "God is above the law"? Or is justice defined by the law, whether or not one uses The Church or God to 'sanction' or 'make it holy?
Since men are "fallen" or prone to compete for survival, how should we view "justice" in the Church? Justice in the Church is no more or less than justice in our Constitutional government, as without it, we do disservice to man (made in God's image,). Man made in "God" image" is not one form, but many forms, because beauty allows for diversity.
Communication means that one understands a context and the history that affects "meaning". This is how the "Christian" uses language "to fix" or "redeem" (this is their theoogical term) the world. Such language is useful to get "believers to agree" and co-operate "with God's purposes, as Goe's purposes are assumed to be "about the world". But, is it just manipulation of language for certain purposes? When in reality, what is desired is certain behavior for certain outcomes or goals of personal interests or concern to leadership? These goals are defined within contexts, themselves.
Groups like to scapegoat. The Christian scapegoats "God", all groups think that "justice" is "their view" in a particular context and God 'is on their side". This is how the Church theologized "Christ" as the unifier of the world. Christ was scapegoated for one group's sins against another group of people. Group reality is not 'human development", but one identification factor to a particlar indivdiual.
In reality, groups are formed and framed by social, legal, moral, and interests factors. These factors support individuals and their view of themself and "life". Groups can be "causes" or "interests", or "pursuits" or "goals". But, all formal groups are framed with certain unifying by-laws, written or un-written.
Communication between groups can be hard because interests, views, and commitments vary. And some of a group's assumptions about 'reality" are not readily understood. This is when diplomatic efforts are made to make for peaceful resolution. Resolutions are "peace treaties". Apart from negotiation, there is no "justice", and wars are made from such offenses/differences of values.
The West believes that the individual has a right to representation and trial by jury. One is not guilty until proven innocent. These protections allow the individual liberty of conscience, as to values and commitments. "Justice", in this regard, has to do with rights. And rights are what make for the "human"/humane environment of the West. The individual is not required to submit to speicifications about their life and its commitments. Group interests are to be negotiated with private individuals.
Christians like to define their group on the "language of theology", instead of understanding that Christianity itself is fraught with differences that are based on "language". What does "sin" mean? The definition will depend on how one understands "salvation", the Church, human/individual development, ulitmate purposes, practical realities, and contexts. This is where the "universalization of language" can be "defeating" to bringing "justice", because people understand terms differently. And such complexity makes it hard to bridge the communication gap.
People live within their understandings of the world. In the West, we believe that equality under law, protects the indivdual from hierarchal forms of co-ercion, but , religious groups understand that hierarchy 'honors God". Therefore, the individual is diminished and devalued, "in the light of God". During the Roman Empire Ceasars (or leaders over the government) were considered to be "gods". Christians were first thought to be atheists in this climate, because they resisted "earthly power". So, whether the Christian thinks that earthly government or 'spiritual governmant has primacy, it interferes with a universal view on government, as to "faith".
"Self-respect" and personal commitments are not values to many religious communities, because the individual is only 'a part" of the "whole" and the whole is more valuable. This view is a communal or societal view. Paul said this in his analogy of the Body of Christ and interdependence. While interdependence is a fact of life, dependence is when hierarchal views are held and diminish the indivdiual within the corporate. This is 'injustice", because "the heads" or the corporation pre-determine without considering the "parts" that are needed to carry out their "plans". Such behavior disrespects/dishonors the individuals, who are to be a part of the team, for each team member must be aware to the specifics of the "goal" and know the part they play to be able to commit and carry out the plan. And sometimes the member may not value the goal, and this is when the member is free to consider other options and the "heads" can find a replacement.
It is interesting that individuals all have an innate sense of justice, because we all want to be valued and respected, unless there has been an environment that did not develop proper boundaries in the child.. Self-respect is the first and foremost foundation of coming to terms in 'just relationships. Otherwise, "self" is seen as "selfishness", and run over by those that cease to understand their own selfishness! Self-interest is the basis of our capitalistic system, and "self-interests" supports the view of the Christian or the naturalists. Men are viewed as "fallen" or "fighting for survival". "Fallen" and Survival" also has many definitions, such definitions make for "life". How are we to understand 'life"?
The Christian likes to spiritualize terms, such as "life". Life is about "God:", instead of man. But, when these terms are united, the reality of "the god/man", we have a man fully developed. The Christian would term it 'in God's image". Such human development does not have to be "spiritual", as man is a physical entity. His brain responds to stimuli and interprets such stimuli in cerain ways. This is why communication is complex, because man's mind is different from his brain.
Minds can be "formed" by certain social conditioning. Such is the Christian's attempt to "condition" through "moral education". But, usually, the Church has certain "goals" that are limiting the definition of such "education of character", which is "Jesus" life, as revealed in Scriptures. Such a life was not respected, honored, or considered as in our Western concept of "justice". Should the West continue to promote such "education", as Christian character? Or should the Church cease in trying to use "language" to get humans to agree to "denying self-interest"? Should individuals allow the Chruch to abuse them under a hierarchal view of power? Is the Church justified in "making disciples", when the Church acts unjustly, according to our Constitutonal governent? Is the Church above the law, because "God is above the law"? Or is justice defined by the law, whether or not one uses The Church or God to 'sanction' or 'make it holy?
Since men are "fallen" or prone to compete for survival, how should we view "justice" in the Church? Justice in the Church is no more or less than justice in our Constitutional government, as without it, we do disservice to man (made in God's image,). Man made in "God" image" is not one form, but many forms, because beauty allows for diversity.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Liberty and Faith
America was founded on the principle of liberty. Liberty was of value to protect from factions (Federalist #10) because factions divided the nation into special interests. And special interests did not protect justice or liberty. Therefore, "faith" in American society is undefined faith, because the Founders did not want to establish a religious tradition (The First Amendment). But, "faith" was understood to be an important value to protect the social structures of the family. Our nation was a mix of Enlightenment understanding and "faith" principles. Today's challenge is to combine such understanding with principles. Pragmatism and moral idealism were the 'standards' the Founders used to serve the nation's interests.
Enlightenment was the knowledge of man in scientific terms. Today's scientific understanding of man and his society has pushed aside the need for "faith" principles. In fact, "faith" has become a natural faith in reason, not revelation. All aspects of man and his environment is undestood within the Academy. The religious find it hard to defend religious texts as special revelation, other than defending "personal faith".
"Personal faith" is just that, "personal". It canot be defined, controlled, or reasoned from the outside. It is a faith development model, that understands "faith" as symbolic and human development as the real understanding to "faith".
"Faith principles" are understood as character, in personal terms, as to values. These are not formed from without but are worked out from within. "God" is understood in symbolic ways of leadership in the here and now, not defined as a supernatural Being. The needed character for a "god" (government) is humility. And this is learned first in the family and "moral education". Fully formed "faith principles" is "self-governance, because self-governance was also self-resposible behavior". "Self-goverance" was a high value to our Founders, as without it, there could be "no union" because self-interested parties would undermine and make "war" for thier personal investments. This was one of the very reasons why "religion" was not to drive public policy, because it would inevitably bring about factions. Factions base their understanding of "faith" on "real understanding" of the transcendent. As the transcendent can only be appealed to but never "proved", these will always cause divisions in the nation. It takes humility to unite when "faith" is so important that "faith communities" divide over its definition.
Humility requires an acknowledgement that leaders are needed if anything gets done. Humility frames the "personal" to be a part of what is needed to protect and prosper society, as a whole. The principle of the "personal" is also, an understood boundary to leadership. Good leadership does not presume and doesn't take advantage or intrude upon another's "personal". This is a character principle of humility and mutural respect. Though humility is needed, it does not "put its head in the sand" but uses the best information that is known in the Academy to further the "ends" of societal flourishing.
Today's sermon tried to balance the supernaturalists and the naturalists undestanding of religion, for societal benefit. The supernaturalists were appealed to on the basis of "God's vision" of love and hope....and the Church being of importance. The naturalists, on the other hand, were appealed to understand the need to the disadvantaged children in our society for education and encouraging character development. These children who have no healthy role models are those that need the impact from those that care about society's health as a whole.
Factions were never the intent of the Founders. They intended to build one nation "under God", but "God" was understood as a "faith principle", because we were mostly a Protestant nation. And faith can't be defined, except as a personal commitment of value in a free society. Those that seek to prevert or co-erce another's life in forming "faith" through "works" are "using scripture to over-ride" the moral principles of our Constitutional government, because the scriptures also say, that "whatsoever is not of faith is sin". And if the "just" live by "faith", then there is no more room for discussion, as whether one is a believer or unbeliever, faith is foremost a principle of character. A character that will not bend under the principle of Liberty and Faith.
Enlightenment was the knowledge of man in scientific terms. Today's scientific understanding of man and his society has pushed aside the need for "faith" principles. In fact, "faith" has become a natural faith in reason, not revelation. All aspects of man and his environment is undestood within the Academy. The religious find it hard to defend religious texts as special revelation, other than defending "personal faith".
"Personal faith" is just that, "personal". It canot be defined, controlled, or reasoned from the outside. It is a faith development model, that understands "faith" as symbolic and human development as the real understanding to "faith".
"Faith principles" are understood as character, in personal terms, as to values. These are not formed from without but are worked out from within. "God" is understood in symbolic ways of leadership in the here and now, not defined as a supernatural Being. The needed character for a "god" (government) is humility. And this is learned first in the family and "moral education". Fully formed "faith principles" is "self-governance, because self-governance was also self-resposible behavior". "Self-goverance" was a high value to our Founders, as without it, there could be "no union" because self-interested parties would undermine and make "war" for thier personal investments. This was one of the very reasons why "religion" was not to drive public policy, because it would inevitably bring about factions. Factions base their understanding of "faith" on "real understanding" of the transcendent. As the transcendent can only be appealed to but never "proved", these will always cause divisions in the nation. It takes humility to unite when "faith" is so important that "faith communities" divide over its definition.
Humility requires an acknowledgement that leaders are needed if anything gets done. Humility frames the "personal" to be a part of what is needed to protect and prosper society, as a whole. The principle of the "personal" is also, an understood boundary to leadership. Good leadership does not presume and doesn't take advantage or intrude upon another's "personal". This is a character principle of humility and mutural respect. Though humility is needed, it does not "put its head in the sand" but uses the best information that is known in the Academy to further the "ends" of societal flourishing.
Today's sermon tried to balance the supernaturalists and the naturalists undestanding of religion, for societal benefit. The supernaturalists were appealed to on the basis of "God's vision" of love and hope....and the Church being of importance. The naturalists, on the other hand, were appealed to understand the need to the disadvantaged children in our society for education and encouraging character development. These children who have no healthy role models are those that need the impact from those that care about society's health as a whole.
Factions were never the intent of the Founders. They intended to build one nation "under God", but "God" was understood as a "faith principle", because we were mostly a Protestant nation. And faith can't be defined, except as a personal commitment of value in a free society. Those that seek to prevert or co-erce another's life in forming "faith" through "works" are "using scripture to over-ride" the moral principles of our Constitutional government, because the scriptures also say, that "whatsoever is not of faith is sin". And if the "just" live by "faith", then there is no more room for discussion, as whether one is a believer or unbeliever, faith is foremost a principle of character. A character that will not bend under the principle of Liberty and Faith.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Prejuidice, Law and Group Behavior
I just heard news that Scotland Yard investigated a group for "prejuidice".. A "humanist" group called Muslims, "Homophobic", and they got charged with being "Islamaphobic". What is Scotland Yard going to do with the "Homophobics"?
All groups have identifiers and must be prejuidiced if these identifiers hold any value whatsoever. Groups define themselves on some basis. This is to be accepted and understood. It is only when we "idealize" group behavior and expect that diverse groups can co-exist apart from any prejuidice, disagreement, or sometimes, even violence. It is too simplistic to think that groups that hold to their values, and understadings of themselves as important, will not be resistant to change. Change would dissolve the importance of the group itself.
My belief, is that co-existance in peace is an ideal, but is not a pragmatic solution to the world's problems. The world is just too complex and there are just too many differences.
All groups have identifiers and must be prejuidiced if these identifiers hold any value whatsoever. Groups define themselves on some basis. This is to be accepted and understood. It is only when we "idealize" group behavior and expect that diverse groups can co-exist apart from any prejuidice, disagreement, or sometimes, even violence. It is too simplistic to think that groups that hold to their values, and understadings of themselves as important, will not be resistant to change. Change would dissolve the importance of the group itself.
My belief, is that co-existance in peace is an ideal, but is not a pragmatic solution to the world's problems. The world is just too complex and there are just too many differences.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Can Religion EVER Bring Justice?
Religion because of its absolute claims on "truth" cannot bring about justice, as religion must discriminate. Religion, by definition, is organized by creeds, religious government, convictions and "prejuidiced" by whatever is considered to be "the truth", or the forming or framing of "truth"! The religious are not taught to be "critical" but, "believing", "trusting", submissive. Those that are leading such religious organizations are prone to err toward their prejuidiced viewpoint. Their values will rule their organization, and this is their right in a free society. America allows for such religious intolerance. So, religion can never be just, in a universal sense. Religion is prejudiced and those that are under its influence will also be prejuidiced.
But, is American government a universal? Yes, because it values individual conscience, in regards to religious conviction and it gives all the right to trial by jury and believes in the innocence of the accused until proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The symbol for justice is a blind-folded woman holding scales, symbolizing the equality before the law, without regard to race, creed or gender. All have the right to petition the government for re-dress from grievances. I value these "rights", as all Americans should.
The religious think that theirs is a "higher law" and a "higher call" than basic "secular justice". This gives them the "right" to do what they want according to their particular conscience. All are not created equal in their view. Justice is only for those who serve their particular values, views, belief s, opinions, political goals, etc. Religion is discriminatory. But, if I am honest, we all are discriminatory, as without discrimination we will hold no beliefs or values at all. So, let the culture wars continue. They are only healthy symbol that our society is still free!!!
But, is American government a universal? Yes, because it values individual conscience, in regards to religious conviction and it gives all the right to trial by jury and believes in the innocence of the accused until proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The symbol for justice is a blind-folded woman holding scales, symbolizing the equality before the law, without regard to race, creed or gender. All have the right to petition the government for re-dress from grievances. I value these "rights", as all Americans should.
The religious think that theirs is a "higher law" and a "higher call" than basic "secular justice". This gives them the "right" to do what they want according to their particular conscience. All are not created equal in their view. Justice is only for those who serve their particular values, views, belief s, opinions, political goals, etc. Religion is discriminatory. But, if I am honest, we all are discriminatory, as without discrimination we will hold no beliefs or values at all. So, let the culture wars continue. They are only healthy symbol that our society is still free!!!
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Choice, Conviction, and Commitment
What makes humans different from other animals? Both conservative and liberals will agree that choice is a value to/for humans. Animals do not make choices, do they? They are herded, trained, modified, by humans (the more intelligent animal) or act instinctively for survival.
Although humans do act to survive, we can use our reason, and our choice to control ourselves as to the means of meeting the need to survive and flourish. We do not have to kill another human because we need to survive. Self-control is what civilizes man. It is his conviction about another's right to existence that limits his "right to life" at all costs. So, besides choice, there are convictions that are important values to society or civilization.
Convictions are about cultural reference points. American culture is defined by the Constitution. Fortunately, in the West we value the individual and uphold his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our commitment to such values cause us to value another's right to liberty, as well. Liberty of conscience is an important value for the Founders, as it protected diverse convictions.
Today on a news program, it was argued that a Supreme Court Justice should believe in "rights" as given by a Creator, so that the Constitution is interpreted as an "originalist". But a Supreme Court Judge argued that one should not have these "religious qualifications/tests for a Supreme Court Justice, or for any office, for that matter. I agree with her, because a justice should be blind to any personal opinion or prejuidice in regards to the Constitution and the case brought before the Court. If a justice was too ideological, whether conservative or liberal, then it might inhibit justice because it would limit the judge's ability to hear without prejuidice or bias concerning the issue or the person involved. All citizens, no matter if they believe in a Creator or not, are to be given the right to Representation before the law!
Americans value the right to dissent and resist a government that does not respect liberty. And liberty is about differences of value in choice, conviction and commitment.
Although humans do act to survive, we can use our reason, and our choice to control ourselves as to the means of meeting the need to survive and flourish. We do not have to kill another human because we need to survive. Self-control is what civilizes man. It is his conviction about another's right to existence that limits his "right to life" at all costs. So, besides choice, there are convictions that are important values to society or civilization.
Convictions are about cultural reference points. American culture is defined by the Constitution. Fortunately, in the West we value the individual and uphold his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our commitment to such values cause us to value another's right to liberty, as well. Liberty of conscience is an important value for the Founders, as it protected diverse convictions.
Today on a news program, it was argued that a Supreme Court Justice should believe in "rights" as given by a Creator, so that the Constitution is interpreted as an "originalist". But a Supreme Court Judge argued that one should not have these "religious qualifications/tests for a Supreme Court Justice, or for any office, for that matter. I agree with her, because a justice should be blind to any personal opinion or prejuidice in regards to the Constitution and the case brought before the Court. If a justice was too ideological, whether conservative or liberal, then it might inhibit justice because it would limit the judge's ability to hear without prejuidice or bias concerning the issue or the person involved. All citizens, no matter if they believe in a Creator or not, are to be given the right to Representation before the law!
Americans value the right to dissent and resist a government that does not respect liberty. And liberty is about differences of value in choice, conviction and commitment.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Review of "The Final Cut"
"The Final Cut" was an interesting sci-fi type film, which had implications to society, the greater good, and privacy.
The Zoe implant was a kind of memory system implanted at birth (or later) that videoed a person's life. At the end of life, a person's family would have a "cutter" cut out any extraneous or unwanted memories to present at a 'memorial service".
As this was an expensive "investment" in one's future, not everyone could afford such a "blessing". Those that had the money could afford to control what and how they were remembered. The problem was when a family wanted to "cut out " certain inappropriate behavior of the "remembered video", or when one happened upon their Zoe and got the memories, while still alive. The Zoe was not to be "inspected", except after one's death, and then was "cut" at the discretion of one's family. It was a form of "heritage", I suppose.
At the beginning of the movie, Allan, "the cutter" had had an experience that had impacted his memory such that he became "a cutter". As a boy, he had visited another city and met Louis, who went to investigate an old barn, where Allan proceeded to walk across an old plank and encouraged the other boy to follow. Louis fell to "his death". Allan found Louis, in what he remembered as "a pool of blood". Allan, had felt responsible for Louis' "death", until the day his memory was retrieved, and he discovered that "the pool of blood"' was only a can of paint that spilt nearby.
Two situations were illustrative of the problems of "solving bad behaviors" by "cutting". Isabel wasn't allowed to remember her father's abuse at her father's "cutting". Zoe prevented the "victim" a way to affirm their own sense of reality and gain their respect and dignity.
The other situation was when a woman found her "memories" before her death, and re-lived those private moments of a past romance. She was rightly outraged at the invasion of privacy.
The moral character that kept warning Alan of the injustice of what he was doing got "his justice" in the end, when Alan was killed and the moral character, retrieved the Zoe implant and got to inspect the "cut" information from other's lives. These memories were something that could reveal crimes against society, but at what costs?.
I thought the film's re-interpretation of "eternal life" as one's "memory" was an interesting one. And I thought that the message of false guilt and shame that drives people to "atone" for their "sin" was also insightful. And I thought that the aspect of a "moral policemen" whether to justify by "cutting" or to judge by "investigating" another life were two sides of extremist views.
But, justice and forgiveness was at the forefront of the film's message. Alan could not forgive himself and found himself driven to help others deny their failings by becoming a "cutter". But, what Allan did, in effect, was to further enable the abusor, and deny the victim, justice.
The invasion of privacy is always of importance to free societies where one's feeling and sense of "independence" is an important value. Zoe, in this sense, was like Big Brother. But, while Zoe helped to further "family image", at the expense of societal norms, Big Brother bans independence from government in personal matters.
Image and reality were the intermingled aspects of this film. Was the memory (image) real? It was, and wasn't.
In Allan's case, he thought his guilt was real, but was imaginary. Myth was an excrusiating "reality" that needed dismantling by reality.
In the case of the little girl and her father, the "reality" and Image was a created one. Myth doesn' t serve anyone's interests in this situation.
So, it seems that myth in real situations can hinder real realities in the real world.
The Zoe implant was a kind of memory system implanted at birth (or later) that videoed a person's life. At the end of life, a person's family would have a "cutter" cut out any extraneous or unwanted memories to present at a 'memorial service".
As this was an expensive "investment" in one's future, not everyone could afford such a "blessing". Those that had the money could afford to control what and how they were remembered. The problem was when a family wanted to "cut out " certain inappropriate behavior of the "remembered video", or when one happened upon their Zoe and got the memories, while still alive. The Zoe was not to be "inspected", except after one's death, and then was "cut" at the discretion of one's family. It was a form of "heritage", I suppose.
At the beginning of the movie, Allan, "the cutter" had had an experience that had impacted his memory such that he became "a cutter". As a boy, he had visited another city and met Louis, who went to investigate an old barn, where Allan proceeded to walk across an old plank and encouraged the other boy to follow. Louis fell to "his death". Allan found Louis, in what he remembered as "a pool of blood". Allan, had felt responsible for Louis' "death", until the day his memory was retrieved, and he discovered that "the pool of blood"' was only a can of paint that spilt nearby.
Two situations were illustrative of the problems of "solving bad behaviors" by "cutting". Isabel wasn't allowed to remember her father's abuse at her father's "cutting". Zoe prevented the "victim" a way to affirm their own sense of reality and gain their respect and dignity.
The other situation was when a woman found her "memories" before her death, and re-lived those private moments of a past romance. She was rightly outraged at the invasion of privacy.
The moral character that kept warning Alan of the injustice of what he was doing got "his justice" in the end, when Alan was killed and the moral character, retrieved the Zoe implant and got to inspect the "cut" information from other's lives. These memories were something that could reveal crimes against society, but at what costs?.
I thought the film's re-interpretation of "eternal life" as one's "memory" was an interesting one. And I thought that the message of false guilt and shame that drives people to "atone" for their "sin" was also insightful. And I thought that the aspect of a "moral policemen" whether to justify by "cutting" or to judge by "investigating" another life were two sides of extremist views.
But, justice and forgiveness was at the forefront of the film's message. Alan could not forgive himself and found himself driven to help others deny their failings by becoming a "cutter". But, what Allan did, in effect, was to further enable the abusor, and deny the victim, justice.
The invasion of privacy is always of importance to free societies where one's feeling and sense of "independence" is an important value. Zoe, in this sense, was like Big Brother. But, while Zoe helped to further "family image", at the expense of societal norms, Big Brother bans independence from government in personal matters.
Image and reality were the intermingled aspects of this film. Was the memory (image) real? It was, and wasn't.
In Allan's case, he thought his guilt was real, but was imaginary. Myth was an excrusiating "reality" that needed dismantling by reality.
In the case of the little girl and her father, the "reality" and Image was a created one. Myth doesn' t serve anyone's interests in this situation.
So, it seems that myth in real situations can hinder real realities in the real world.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
"Does History Progress?
Does history progress? Yes and No.
History is not like it was during the Barbarian Invasions, or is it?
History is like it has always has been and ever will be when we look at the need for balancing power. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Tyranny is the name for living under such absolute power.
We cannot survive without vision about our country's future. How and what can we do to make our country "better"? How will we progress into the future? Can we find a way forward through the "culture wars"?
How do we maintain civility when most everyone has lost a sense of direction, OR their sense of direction seems to be challenged? How are we to act as "a people" to one another? Do we believe and upholde the ultimate value of our nation, liberty?
Progress has been experienced in our country through scienctific discoveries, technological advances, and through social changes, that brought about a greater hope to all. Law is not just to maintain order, or control over others, but to bring about a culture that seeks to do justly. And the basis of our laws, is that we are all equal under law, this is what justice is.
Equal under law does not mean that we all have equal abilities, interests, or motivations. But, it does mean that whoever has a desire and will "to be" or "to do" will be given an opportunity. Our society should be invested in the human and the humane, as this is what our Declaration of Independence was/is about, natural rights.
Does history progress? It is up to you, as an individual, to see that it does, and that can only be done with the will to serve and be self-reflective.
History is not like it was during the Barbarian Invasions, or is it?
History is like it has always has been and ever will be when we look at the need for balancing power. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Tyranny is the name for living under such absolute power.
We cannot survive without vision about our country's future. How and what can we do to make our country "better"? How will we progress into the future? Can we find a way forward through the "culture wars"?
How do we maintain civility when most everyone has lost a sense of direction, OR their sense of direction seems to be challenged? How are we to act as "a people" to one another? Do we believe and upholde the ultimate value of our nation, liberty?
Progress has been experienced in our country through scienctific discoveries, technological advances, and through social changes, that brought about a greater hope to all. Law is not just to maintain order, or control over others, but to bring about a culture that seeks to do justly. And the basis of our laws, is that we are all equal under law, this is what justice is.
Equal under law does not mean that we all have equal abilities, interests, or motivations. But, it does mean that whoever has a desire and will "to be" or "to do" will be given an opportunity. Our society should be invested in the human and the humane, as this is what our Declaration of Independence was/is about, natural rights.
Does history progress? It is up to you, as an individual, to see that it does, and that can only be done with the will to serve and be self-reflective.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
When Principle Meets the Humane
Life is filled with complex problems, not just within one's own frame of reference, but the world at large. There is definately no easy solution in the political realm. We all will approach problems with different ways of viewing the problem and the way we think best to solve the problem. The challenge is to those that have such conviction of thinking and being in the world, that there is little room for considering or viewing another's way of thinking, understanding or seeing how the problems can be solved. For these, the principled conscience is the ultimate determinor of their values. And these people believe that without such a principle, then "life" is doomed, and solutions will not be forthcoming.
Such a principled conscience is what causes conflict in the world, because of differences of principle and how that is understood within one's conscience or value system.
How is one to be humane to those whose principle leaves little room for diversity of conscience, or value? The only option it to agree to disagree and go one's way. But, when those with such opinions hold the reigns of power, these become dangerous to peace, because they become ideologically driven, whether by a material or spiritual motivation.
Our country is divided these days by such a division of "principle". The political realm is filled till it sickens the average citizen away from participating or caring about their country and protecting and promoting liberty and justice. Such "principled conscience" becomes a war that is not open to dialogue, but demands surrender of the other side. The Founders would have been aghast.
Although our Founders understood that orthodoxy was not the absolute in terms of expressing reality, neither did they think that scientific explaination would do, either, when it came to liberty and justice for all. The Founders were open to formulate a government that deemed equality before the law for its citizens. The law was "KING", no longer a "Divine Ruler, King".
The law protects its citizens by representing their interests, not in spite of their interests. "Self interest" and "Self government" was an investment in this experiential form of government. As citizens sought to better their life through their various pursuits, the world was "wide open". These pursuits only furthered the prosperity of the country in a free market and a free society. The only inhibition was in protection of another's same right to their interests.
Today, the public square is filled with various voices and opinions about how our government should run, what it should promote, and how it should all be accomplished. Our culture wars are intense debates about these principles of conscience.
How do we describe the world, and its reality? What is to be the focus of government, or should government have a focus, apart from a passive submission to "the people"? What interests should our government have abroad? And on what basis are those interests based and should it matter? Some may even believe that our government should have no interests abroad, but this seems improbable since the world has already stepped into that domain. American must play some part if she wants to continue to be a player in the game of trade, commerce, finance, and investments.
So, what is the value of a principled conscience? The value of a principled conscience is a value of identity, a value of commitment, purpose and life orientation. If we want to remain free and open to uphold justice for all, then we cannot let our principled consciences run the whole show. We must remain humane and civil in our differences.
Such a principled conscience is what causes conflict in the world, because of differences of principle and how that is understood within one's conscience or value system.
How is one to be humane to those whose principle leaves little room for diversity of conscience, or value? The only option it to agree to disagree and go one's way. But, when those with such opinions hold the reigns of power, these become dangerous to peace, because they become ideologically driven, whether by a material or spiritual motivation.
Our country is divided these days by such a division of "principle". The political realm is filled till it sickens the average citizen away from participating or caring about their country and protecting and promoting liberty and justice. Such "principled conscience" becomes a war that is not open to dialogue, but demands surrender of the other side. The Founders would have been aghast.
Although our Founders understood that orthodoxy was not the absolute in terms of expressing reality, neither did they think that scientific explaination would do, either, when it came to liberty and justice for all. The Founders were open to formulate a government that deemed equality before the law for its citizens. The law was "KING", no longer a "Divine Ruler, King".
The law protects its citizens by representing their interests, not in spite of their interests. "Self interest" and "Self government" was an investment in this experiential form of government. As citizens sought to better their life through their various pursuits, the world was "wide open". These pursuits only furthered the prosperity of the country in a free market and a free society. The only inhibition was in protection of another's same right to their interests.
Today, the public square is filled with various voices and opinions about how our government should run, what it should promote, and how it should all be accomplished. Our culture wars are intense debates about these principles of conscience.
How do we describe the world, and its reality? What is to be the focus of government, or should government have a focus, apart from a passive submission to "the people"? What interests should our government have abroad? And on what basis are those interests based and should it matter? Some may even believe that our government should have no interests abroad, but this seems improbable since the world has already stepped into that domain. American must play some part if she wants to continue to be a player in the game of trade, commerce, finance, and investments.
So, what is the value of a principled conscience? The value of a principled conscience is a value of identity, a value of commitment, purpose and life orientation. If we want to remain free and open to uphold justice for all, then we cannot let our principled consciences run the whole show. We must remain humane and civil in our differences.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
What is the Rationale?
This morning I watched an Ethics panel that consisted of many Supreme Court Judges. It got me thinking about minority rights, common sense, and public interest.
One of the questions was about "Originalist" interpretation of the Constitution and whether this would be the value to be upheld. The discussion went back and forth over what did it mean to interpret according to "original intent" versus what society's needs, or problems were at a given time. The conservative, versus the progressive use of the law always leaves one to question, "what is the rationale behind these views"?
Then, one of the justices said something that perked my interest and made me question, "what is the rationale", today?
She said, that she was older and had seen many changes come about over the years she has served on the Supreme Court. But, today's attitude that dismisses the judge's decision and may even take the judge to jail was "disturbing" to her. I would concur with her assessment!
How is justice to be maintained or a free society upheld, when the ones who hold the key to our laws are in "fear and trembling' that they may be targets of "mob rule"? This was not the original intent of our Founding Fathers. They wanted the court free to judge, so that power could be balanced and society could function under the social norms that "ruled" under their interpretive hand.
If such a situation is ever allowed, where judges are accountable to the people, then we have anarchy, indeed! Judges make the judgments about our laws, in how they are applied. The legislature make the laws of our land. And maybe this is where the cupability lies.
If the legislature is making the laws that guard or guide our country, then they are the ones that are accountably to the people throught the voting booth. These legislatures need accountability through term limits, I believe, so that none can make "empires' for themselves, using the law to do so.
We found our country upon the principle that we would not be taxed without being represented. Our property was to be protected from government's grab by our vote and our Constitutonal right to representation in Congress.
At the same time the peasantry were to be represented, the States were also to have their interests represented.
Arizona has made laws that further the Constitutional obligation of protecting our nation. But, the federal government doesn't see any "power grab" in subverting the Constitution's obligation to protect our nation's interests. What is more important, it seems, is to protect illegal immigrants. But, at what costs? Only the American taxpayer. We, the people has become "We, the Government". Individual citizens are loosing their right to privacy, protection, and the right to their nation under the auspices of "greater good" language. But, at what costs? What is the rationale? Is it about politics, and the next election?
The executive branch is asserting more and more power from other branches and this was not the balance of power the Founders intended, either. What is the rationale? Is it about ruling at the costs of governing? Is it about power, rather than about liberty?
I think our country and all its inhabitants need to ask their government, "What is the rationale"?
One of the questions was about "Originalist" interpretation of the Constitution and whether this would be the value to be upheld. The discussion went back and forth over what did it mean to interpret according to "original intent" versus what society's needs, or problems were at a given time. The conservative, versus the progressive use of the law always leaves one to question, "what is the rationale behind these views"?
Then, one of the justices said something that perked my interest and made me question, "what is the rationale", today?
She said, that she was older and had seen many changes come about over the years she has served on the Supreme Court. But, today's attitude that dismisses the judge's decision and may even take the judge to jail was "disturbing" to her. I would concur with her assessment!
How is justice to be maintained or a free society upheld, when the ones who hold the key to our laws are in "fear and trembling' that they may be targets of "mob rule"? This was not the original intent of our Founding Fathers. They wanted the court free to judge, so that power could be balanced and society could function under the social norms that "ruled" under their interpretive hand.
If such a situation is ever allowed, where judges are accountable to the people, then we have anarchy, indeed! Judges make the judgments about our laws, in how they are applied. The legislature make the laws of our land. And maybe this is where the cupability lies.
If the legislature is making the laws that guard or guide our country, then they are the ones that are accountably to the people throught the voting booth. These legislatures need accountability through term limits, I believe, so that none can make "empires' for themselves, using the law to do so.
We found our country upon the principle that we would not be taxed without being represented. Our property was to be protected from government's grab by our vote and our Constitutonal right to representation in Congress.
At the same time the peasantry were to be represented, the States were also to have their interests represented.
Arizona has made laws that further the Constitutional obligation of protecting our nation. But, the federal government doesn't see any "power grab" in subverting the Constitution's obligation to protect our nation's interests. What is more important, it seems, is to protect illegal immigrants. But, at what costs? Only the American taxpayer. We, the people has become "We, the Government". Individual citizens are loosing their right to privacy, protection, and the right to their nation under the auspices of "greater good" language. But, at what costs? What is the rationale? Is it about politics, and the next election?
The executive branch is asserting more and more power from other branches and this was not the balance of power the Founders intended, either. What is the rationale? Is it about ruling at the costs of governing? Is it about power, rather than about liberty?
I think our country and all its inhabitants need to ask their government, "What is the rationale"?
Monday, July 12, 2010
When Rights Make Wrongs
Rights are the American "birth-right", as Americans believe that the individual matters. But, when do rights make for wrongs? Rights have limitations, don't they? Or do they?
Last night, I watched Geraldo, who had asked a Black Panther onto his show. Geraldo, Fox News, and many other America institutions were villified in the name of "civil rights". Film clip snippetts were shown where Black Panthers were calling for violence to establish justice. Geraldo was visibly upset and disturbed over the "racist rhetoric" and tried unsuccessful (IMO) to get this Black Panther lawyer to see or listen to his viewpoint. What would have been the response if a white person had said similar racist statements, calling for "equality" and "justice"?
It was obvious after a few minutes that the conversation was not going to be a dialogue, or even a question and answer format, but a controlled and determined rant on how the African American has been treated. The "old, old" story of discrimination, a lack of equal opportunity, etc. etc.
When Geraldo tried to point out how it was the white majority that fought in the Civil War, elected Abraham Lincoln, etc., the Black Panther repeated that Glenn Beck was being pointedly disrespectful to host a 'tea party' on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on Martin Luther King's birthday. Do whites not have any rights on Martin Luther King's birthday? Do we not have a right to the Lincoln Memorial, or is it only a "Black" sanctuary, holy ground for sacred rights?
I don't know where this will end, but it must. Groups that demand rights, divide our nation and bring disharmony to society.
Is there a difference when African Americans "speak hotly" and angrily about "civil rights" and when the "tea parties" do?
I think so. But, why?
The tea parties seek to bring accountability to government where there has been unaccountability. America is a representative Republic, where the representatives have not heard or do not care to represent their contiuencies. We are going to be taxed for a healthcare plan that the majority did not want. And the administrator of Medicare seems to have oppositional views from the American populace.
Accountability and equality were the themes in the beginning of Martin Luther King's civil rights movement. Today, though, after equal rights have been passed, and anti-discrimanatory laws have been "established", people have come to accept diversity and expect it. No one can help individual cases where prejuidiced people do evil things in the name of their prejuidice. We shouldn't be surprised by such behavior, as humans do divide and understand their "world" by categorization.
These Black Panthers are seeking justice by angry dissent, without considering any other point of view than their own.
Groups that seek to divide America by strife and bitterness should have their rights stripped from them. America is a free nation and one can find some place to belong, without demanding uniformity when it comes to the diverse population that makes America what it is. We are not to be united by creed, race, or social standing. We are Americans, and we are united by our liberty. The very liberty that is being challenged by those that seek to suggest that America is an imperialistic, and bigotted nation.
Last night, I watched Geraldo, who had asked a Black Panther onto his show. Geraldo, Fox News, and many other America institutions were villified in the name of "civil rights". Film clip snippetts were shown where Black Panthers were calling for violence to establish justice. Geraldo was visibly upset and disturbed over the "racist rhetoric" and tried unsuccessful (IMO) to get this Black Panther lawyer to see or listen to his viewpoint. What would have been the response if a white person had said similar racist statements, calling for "equality" and "justice"?
It was obvious after a few minutes that the conversation was not going to be a dialogue, or even a question and answer format, but a controlled and determined rant on how the African American has been treated. The "old, old" story of discrimination, a lack of equal opportunity, etc. etc.
When Geraldo tried to point out how it was the white majority that fought in the Civil War, elected Abraham Lincoln, etc., the Black Panther repeated that Glenn Beck was being pointedly disrespectful to host a 'tea party' on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on Martin Luther King's birthday. Do whites not have any rights on Martin Luther King's birthday? Do we not have a right to the Lincoln Memorial, or is it only a "Black" sanctuary, holy ground for sacred rights?
I don't know where this will end, but it must. Groups that demand rights, divide our nation and bring disharmony to society.
Is there a difference when African Americans "speak hotly" and angrily about "civil rights" and when the "tea parties" do?
I think so. But, why?
The tea parties seek to bring accountability to government where there has been unaccountability. America is a representative Republic, where the representatives have not heard or do not care to represent their contiuencies. We are going to be taxed for a healthcare plan that the majority did not want. And the administrator of Medicare seems to have oppositional views from the American populace.
Accountability and equality were the themes in the beginning of Martin Luther King's civil rights movement. Today, though, after equal rights have been passed, and anti-discrimanatory laws have been "established", people have come to accept diversity and expect it. No one can help individual cases where prejuidiced people do evil things in the name of their prejuidice. We shouldn't be surprised by such behavior, as humans do divide and understand their "world" by categorization.
These Black Panthers are seeking justice by angry dissent, without considering any other point of view than their own.
Groups that seek to divide America by strife and bitterness should have their rights stripped from them. America is a free nation and one can find some place to belong, without demanding uniformity when it comes to the diverse population that makes America what it is. We are not to be united by creed, race, or social standing. We are Americans, and we are united by our liberty. The very liberty that is being challenged by those that seek to suggest that America is an imperialistic, and bigotted nation.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Why Religious Liberty Is Important to Individual Conscience
Our Founding Fathers understood that religion was an important dimension to liberty. Liberty values diversity, while tradition defines to unify. The Founders did not have one interpretation as to their religious understanding, when they founded our country. But, they did understand that an appeal to natural rights was necessary for the right to dissent. Natural rights were granted by "universal order", because God was the ordainer of such rights, not the government. Their "new experiment" was a "moral government" that protected and provided for liberty against power, position and might.
"Universal order" today, underwrites social Darwinism, the power and right of the "fittest". Today, Science defines to unify, as Tradition once did. But, the basis of such unity, structures society after power and not liberty, just as it did in pre-modernity.
Liberty of conscience in regards to religion was to protect against abuse of power in the Founder's eyes. And the structuring of "moral government" was a balance of power, not power itself. The law was the "ruler" and balancer of power.
Today, those that adhere to a politicized religious conscience can do so and should, but should not enforce their position upon those that "see" things differently. The sects are alive and well, which will continue to further bring alienation of such sects from the "Mother" Church Tradition or its Jewish root. But, each and every sect is an attempt at defining religious conviction, and defining commitment. Problems arise when these convictions and commitments impinge on another's right to liberty of conscience, opinion and commitment.
We must remember that whenever one defines, one also limits and judges. And yet, definitions are necessary for understanding and maintaining "order". Our Founders defined liberty according to the Constitution. The Constitution was to protect citizens from abuses of power. And our courts are the ones that will settle disputes of definitions.
"Universal order" today, underwrites social Darwinism, the power and right of the "fittest". Today, Science defines to unify, as Tradition once did. But, the basis of such unity, structures society after power and not liberty, just as it did in pre-modernity.
Liberty of conscience in regards to religion was to protect against abuse of power in the Founder's eyes. And the structuring of "moral government" was a balance of power, not power itself. The law was the "ruler" and balancer of power.
Today, those that adhere to a politicized religious conscience can do so and should, but should not enforce their position upon those that "see" things differently. The sects are alive and well, which will continue to further bring alienation of such sects from the "Mother" Church Tradition or its Jewish root. But, each and every sect is an attempt at defining religious conviction, and defining commitment. Problems arise when these convictions and commitments impinge on another's right to liberty of conscience, opinion and commitment.
We must remember that whenever one defines, one also limits and judges. And yet, definitions are necessary for understanding and maintaining "order". Our Founders defined liberty according to the Constitution. The Constitution was to protect citizens from abuses of power. And our courts are the ones that will settle disputes of definitions.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
The Difference Between Our Founding Revolution and Today's
America was founded to establish a different environment for human flourishing. This environment allowed for religious freedom, as well as self-interested "gold digging". There was to be no Divine Right of Kings, meaning that no one was above the law. All were created equal and were given the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Leaders were no different from "Peasants" in our country's estimation! We were equal AND free!
Today, it seems that leaders think that they must establish a "certain order" and/or outcome to maintain equality. This mind-set "flies in the face" of the self-governance that our Founders admired. The individual was a person in his own right. No authority, except the law was to have power over him, and that was only to limit license where it concerned another citizen.
Today, those with money and/or power tend to think that they can "bend the rules" to suit their purposes. And these have no sense of conscience where it concerns impinging upon another's boundary.
Although it is true that the Founding era allowed for slavery, it is also true that America fought for civil liberties, and "her people still do. Men are equal under the law, but are we as free?
Government was to be limited in the Founding era, as governemnt was to be "by the people and for the people". Government was no longer ruled by those who inherited the position but by those who "won the vote".
Today, those who "win the vote" must also win the pocketbooks. Those that run for office must have the means to establish their campaigns, and campaigns in our big county takes a lot of money. Does the influence of money in our politics corrupt? How can we limit such corruption?
Government was not to be a "society" itself, where leaders could have special priviledge behind its "walls". Government was to be not just representative, but accountable.
I wonder what the Founders would have thought if they had lived today? What would be their advice to us? And what could we learn from them?
Today, it seems that leaders think that they must establish a "certain order" and/or outcome to maintain equality. This mind-set "flies in the face" of the self-governance that our Founders admired. The individual was a person in his own right. No authority, except the law was to have power over him, and that was only to limit license where it concerned another citizen.
Today, those with money and/or power tend to think that they can "bend the rules" to suit their purposes. And these have no sense of conscience where it concerns impinging upon another's boundary.
Although it is true that the Founding era allowed for slavery, it is also true that America fought for civil liberties, and "her people still do. Men are equal under the law, but are we as free?
Government was to be limited in the Founding era, as governemnt was to be "by the people and for the people". Government was no longer ruled by those who inherited the position but by those who "won the vote".
Today, those who "win the vote" must also win the pocketbooks. Those that run for office must have the means to establish their campaigns, and campaigns in our big county takes a lot of money. Does the influence of money in our politics corrupt? How can we limit such corruption?
Government was not to be a "society" itself, where leaders could have special priviledge behind its "walls". Government was to be not just representative, but accountable.
I wonder what the Founders would have thought if they had lived today? What would be their advice to us? And what could we learn from them?
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Choices Are Necessary for Moral Development
There is out-rage on the radio and T.V. concerning Michele Obama's new obesity agenda. Some believe that government has "no right" to suggest or limit choices, even if they are detrimental to health. Others believe that unless government intervenes, then all of us will "pay the costs" of unwise choices of others. Which is more important?
Those that believe that government must intervene must have some understanding of their priorities. Michele's has chosen health issues. Every "wife-in-chief" has had some form of social concern that she has undertaken, but Michele's concern has become a "mandate" for all of us. Instead of a moral example, this administration seeks to limit personal decision making or punish or impugne those choices that are "not good for societal flourishing". Society comes first, not individual choice and value.
Just recently, it was discussed that those fast food resturants that give a "prize" to children in their "Happy Meals" should only put the prize in the healthy choice. Government is playing the parent in these situations. Is this the place of government?
Those that argue that without government intervention, then American obesity will rise, as it has over the last decade. Parents have seemed to be absent or uncaring of these values for their children. Health care costs will increase due to the diseases associated with obesity and the rest of society will suffer due to the costs to healthcare. Children have also suffered and will continue to suffer unless government intervenes.
Although I agree that we should be concerned about health and healthcare costs, why hasn't the social norm of American "thinness" made its impact on American choice and value? Would government intervention deter those that are determined to eat unhealthy food? Would the "black market" for unhealthy food arise if givernment regulates our choices? Should corporations be limited and not individuals?
It seems that corporations are in bed with the adminstration, so that the individual will have no re-course but "be forced" to co-operate with such intrusions into the American "way of life".
Is this a way for government to "own" all of us, because of government's "concern", especially in light of the fact that government must begin to think about the costs of healthcare, since it has implemented its healthcare "plan". Isn't a government healthcare plan a way for "leaders" to control more and more of our personal choices and values, as well as our money and where it goes? Where is liberty, then?
Isn't the real reason why healthcare and all other choices are being defined by laws, plans or take-overs by governmnet, really about power and control over our liberties? One by one we are loosing our liberty for "the common good", or for other "noble reasons" that are defined by those over us. No longer is there a "moral majority", but a devious elite aristocracy that limits information to the very people that it is supposed to be responsible to. Where is accountability of the governmen to the people? Now, it seems that the people are accountable to the government!
Government was intended to be self-governance, which means that the individual must determine what values he holds to be the most important for himself, within the boundaries of law. Without the liberty to choose what one values most, isn't government acting "immorally" by asserting their power and limiting human choice, which is the basis of morality itself?
Limiting choice will certainly enslave all of us, as those that believe that the "ends justifies the means" will rationalize anything to get their way. And they will be self satisfied in our suffering because is serves out what they deem as "equal justice" in the larger scale of things.
Those that believe that government must intervene must have some understanding of their priorities. Michele's has chosen health issues. Every "wife-in-chief" has had some form of social concern that she has undertaken, but Michele's concern has become a "mandate" for all of us. Instead of a moral example, this administration seeks to limit personal decision making or punish or impugne those choices that are "not good for societal flourishing". Society comes first, not individual choice and value.
Just recently, it was discussed that those fast food resturants that give a "prize" to children in their "Happy Meals" should only put the prize in the healthy choice. Government is playing the parent in these situations. Is this the place of government?
Those that argue that without government intervention, then American obesity will rise, as it has over the last decade. Parents have seemed to be absent or uncaring of these values for their children. Health care costs will increase due to the diseases associated with obesity and the rest of society will suffer due to the costs to healthcare. Children have also suffered and will continue to suffer unless government intervenes.
Although I agree that we should be concerned about health and healthcare costs, why hasn't the social norm of American "thinness" made its impact on American choice and value? Would government intervention deter those that are determined to eat unhealthy food? Would the "black market" for unhealthy food arise if givernment regulates our choices? Should corporations be limited and not individuals?
It seems that corporations are in bed with the adminstration, so that the individual will have no re-course but "be forced" to co-operate with such intrusions into the American "way of life".
Is this a way for government to "own" all of us, because of government's "concern", especially in light of the fact that government must begin to think about the costs of healthcare, since it has implemented its healthcare "plan". Isn't a government healthcare plan a way for "leaders" to control more and more of our personal choices and values, as well as our money and where it goes? Where is liberty, then?
Isn't the real reason why healthcare and all other choices are being defined by laws, plans or take-overs by governmnet, really about power and control over our liberties? One by one we are loosing our liberty for "the common good", or for other "noble reasons" that are defined by those over us. No longer is there a "moral majority", but a devious elite aristocracy that limits information to the very people that it is supposed to be responsible to. Where is accountability of the governmen to the people? Now, it seems that the people are accountable to the government!
Government was intended to be self-governance, which means that the individual must determine what values he holds to be the most important for himself, within the boundaries of law. Without the liberty to choose what one values most, isn't government acting "immorally" by asserting their power and limiting human choice, which is the basis of morality itself?
Limiting choice will certainly enslave all of us, as those that believe that the "ends justifies the means" will rationalize anything to get their way. And they will be self satisfied in our suffering because is serves out what they deem as "equal justice" in the larger scale of things.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Asher Lev's Rejection of Traditional Answers
My husband and I went to see the play, "Asher Lev", based on a book that freshmen had to read for a mandantory course. It is about the life of a Hasidic Jew, who is a gifted artist and his coming to "crossroads" about where his ultimate commitment will be.
Art is a "tradition" itself, Asher is told by another artist, who becomes his mentor. Art has certain values, that conflicted with Asher's religious tradition. Art is studying the form of the body, the nude, which is forbidden under religious laws. And art is valued by those that usually don't value his religious tradition.
Asher chooses to "find himself" rather than submit to his religious tradition. This is where he has to "let go" of his former life, as he understood it. He comes into an understanding of himself as an artist and not just as a Jewish man.
I find most conservative religious traditions prescribe these types of limitations. Limitations about what one should or shouldn't do, and what one should or shouldn't believe. Such nonsense, when the supernatural is not understood in real world terms, but only in the speculations of religious visionaries that tend to be authoritarian because of such understandings.
America is the "land of the free" because it understands itself as the home of the brave. Americans were the pioneers in a new world and with a new world order. We understood the value of equality under law, liberty as a value, and made a commitment that we would universalize these values as human rights.
Human rights is not just a universal, but is understood to be for the individual. We are diverse, becasue we believe in individual liberties, and the right to pursue one's own ends in volutary association of contractual relationships. Humans can flourish and find themselves in such a system of government. And Americans believe, for the most part, that this is a universal right, the right of a representative government.
Art is a "tradition" itself, Asher is told by another artist, who becomes his mentor. Art has certain values, that conflicted with Asher's religious tradition. Art is studying the form of the body, the nude, which is forbidden under religious laws. And art is valued by those that usually don't value his religious tradition.
Asher chooses to "find himself" rather than submit to his religious tradition. This is where he has to "let go" of his former life, as he understood it. He comes into an understanding of himself as an artist and not just as a Jewish man.
I find most conservative religious traditions prescribe these types of limitations. Limitations about what one should or shouldn't do, and what one should or shouldn't believe. Such nonsense, when the supernatural is not understood in real world terms, but only in the speculations of religious visionaries that tend to be authoritarian because of such understandings.
America is the "land of the free" because it understands itself as the home of the brave. Americans were the pioneers in a new world and with a new world order. We understood the value of equality under law, liberty as a value, and made a commitment that we would universalize these values as human rights.
Human rights is not just a universal, but is understood to be for the individual. We are diverse, becasue we believe in individual liberties, and the right to pursue one's own ends in volutary association of contractual relationships. Humans can flourish and find themselves in such a system of government. And Americans believe, for the most part, that this is a universal right, the right of a representative government.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Morality and America
I have concern over our nation's recent division over "cultural issues" of morality. Our country seems to be conflicted over our ideological identity. And identity defines how we understand ourselves, so identity is an important aspect of culture.
Morality is considered by some as behavior, judgments and sentiments. Some believe that morality is intuitive, through cultural conditioning. Others believe in a more rational view of morality. It seems that because our country is so diverse, America has come to a crisis of identity. This can be useful or damaging to our ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Awhile ago, I listened to a former KGB agent talk about the process that the USSR taught them in over-taking another country. There were four stages. The third was "crisis" and this is where America finds itself. What is to happen? Will we be overcome by an "authoritarian regime' , whether religious or secular, so that order can be restored? I hope not, otherwise, we will have no more liberty, because others will decide what was of private and personal conviction and commitment.
I hope for the Founding Fathers, and life in the future for all Americans, that the lines will not be drawn and driven on ideological religious or material grounds. We will certainly have disagreements and that is healthy, as long as we can listen to the other side, without obssession. I hope we will attempt to be honest that our nation is not a uniform, and ideologically driven nation.
Our nation has been pragmatic in its approach to bringing unity from diversity. And the Founders used religious language to formulate some of our country's documents. But, others have been based on such things as natural rights, and natural law, which was the scientific view of that day. Both religious liberty AND moral order, which was understood to be the "order of the universe" were what brought about our liberty and underwrote our understanding of justice.
We need to be honest that our nation was not founded as an evangelical nation, but a secular State, which allowed for diverse views about and toward religious traditions. It is a liberal democracy or a Constitutional Republic. Both are needed to affirm and balance the other, so that our nation can remain free, and open. We do not want to limit others liberty because of our own conviction or understanding of 'life".
Morality is considered by some as behavior, judgments and sentiments. Some believe that morality is intuitive, through cultural conditioning. Others believe in a more rational view of morality. It seems that because our country is so diverse, America has come to a crisis of identity. This can be useful or damaging to our ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Awhile ago, I listened to a former KGB agent talk about the process that the USSR taught them in over-taking another country. There were four stages. The third was "crisis" and this is where America finds itself. What is to happen? Will we be overcome by an "authoritarian regime' , whether religious or secular, so that order can be restored? I hope not, otherwise, we will have no more liberty, because others will decide what was of private and personal conviction and commitment.
I hope for the Founding Fathers, and life in the future for all Americans, that the lines will not be drawn and driven on ideological religious or material grounds. We will certainly have disagreements and that is healthy, as long as we can listen to the other side, without obssession. I hope we will attempt to be honest that our nation is not a uniform, and ideologically driven nation.
Our nation has been pragmatic in its approach to bringing unity from diversity. And the Founders used religious language to formulate some of our country's documents. But, others have been based on such things as natural rights, and natural law, which was the scientific view of that day. Both religious liberty AND moral order, which was understood to be the "order of the universe" were what brought about our liberty and underwrote our understanding of justice.
We need to be honest that our nation was not founded as an evangelical nation, but a secular State, which allowed for diverse views about and toward religious traditions. It is a liberal democracy or a Constitutional Republic. Both are needed to affirm and balance the other, so that our nation can remain free, and open. We do not want to limit others liberty because of our own conviction or understanding of 'life".
Thursday, February 11, 2010
A VERT GRAVE MISTAKE !
In last post, I made a grave mistake. I stated that government was never meant to give power, but to limit power.
In one sense, this is true, as it limits what one can do to another, but I also believe that limited government is what the Founders intended for our free society. Limited government doesn't give power by enabling bad behavior that disregards another's life. But, it does give power in the sense of enabling the individual to choose and determine his own destiny. That is the "ideal".
But, experience underlines the facts. And the facts are that all are not equal in opportunity. Some believe it is the government's job to rectify that "injustice'. This is what our country does in minority rights. But, as I have expressed before, minority rights can bring about reverse discrimination, the unintended consequence.
The world is filled with 'injustice" and I don't think that injustice will ever be resolved completely, because there are always two sides to any issue, if not more. We must do what we can or will to prepare for injustice. And this is why laws are in place, in the first place.
In one sense, this is true, as it limits what one can do to another, but I also believe that limited government is what the Founders intended for our free society. Limited government doesn't give power by enabling bad behavior that disregards another's life. But, it does give power in the sense of enabling the individual to choose and determine his own destiny. That is the "ideal".
But, experience underlines the facts. And the facts are that all are not equal in opportunity. Some believe it is the government's job to rectify that "injustice'. This is what our country does in minority rights. But, as I have expressed before, minority rights can bring about reverse discrimination, the unintended consequence.
The world is filled with 'injustice" and I don't think that injustice will ever be resolved completely, because there are always two sides to any issue, if not more. We must do what we can or will to prepare for injustice. And this is why laws are in place, in the first place.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Today, I Saw and Remembered...
Today, I saw and remembered the Netherlands. It was a sense of "home" for me, as this is my husband's "homeland". Most of his family still live there. And today, I ran across a blog that had some marvelous pictures of the blogger's visit there. It was nostalgic for me. But, her written entry on November 2, 2009, grabbed me heartfully. Her entry described the "culture" very well.
This the entry of "D.C. Weather Report: Mostly Bad News" blog by Iggy Bloggit from Washington D.C. ...
"When I stepped off the platform (after taking a train from the airport to Amsterdam) I saw the future: people living artfully. I arrived into a performance of style and beauty, art and grace. Ahh the Dutchies. Striking and silent. Poise in the way they ride their clunky bicycles, drive their tiny cars. Beautiful and brilliant. Ongoing preservation of really old architecture and traditions of keeping an open mind, speaking openly and to the point, tolerating and living and loving together. Recognition of value in history and future. The past and future together, a perfect equation for a successful present.How do they do it? How does such a place exist, that lives art in every corner?
Even scaffolding and trash bins and mailboxes are decorated with simple illustrations or constructed in such a style to make them pleasing, to add to the collective. My impression is that it is history and an attitude of tolerance that has allowed them to appreciate life, to move beyond matters of disagreement and work together from all sides of political, religious, scientific, and personal perspectives and form a more perfect society. Oh, you are religious? Great, enjoy the meaning in the beautiful ancient churches. Oh, you are homosexual? Have a great life, we were the first country to legalize your marriage. Welcome welcome everyone, we may not all live the same way but we all live, all the same. Our differences make us more interesting.
When I look I can see golden age and holocaust, renaissance and crusade. Is "historically rich" really so important? My high school French teacher thought so, she made it clear what she thought of the US and none of us understood her distaste. That was a long time ago, I've come to understand what she meant. But never to the aching degree I felt in a land where I looked at the people and finally felt I'd found my other elf girl selves. They looked like me! Long and blonde and legs and creamy features. I love and hide behind my personal identity as the white minority in every place I've lived. This disturbed something in me, to see what I would have been if my family a few generations back had not left Western Europe. I felt proud to be European. But though my longings to explore further are directed away from the US, there is a certain cool thing about being American too, and surviving it :) After all we did just elect a black president... and yes, that is unbelievable worldwide still a year later, worth referencing again and again.
One evening I sat with friends outside a bar on the canal in Utrecht.A stranger sat down beside me, looked to be about 40. Big guy, Moroccan. Don't know which of us started it but we settled into a conversation, the bold honest talk of strangers.
"So you are not Dutch?" he asked.
"I am American. I live in Washington, DC."
"Oh, I like to meet an American," he said. I didn't ask him why, but a few minutes later he told me.
"So how old were you when all of this shit happen?"
"I'm 28," I said, trying to follow him.
"So 8 years ago. You were 20. You were in DC? What was it like there?"
"No," I caught up to his meaning.
"I was in Hawai'i. It was early in the morning. We all knew of it, right away."
"Ahh," he said. A few minutes later: "Do you like to know where I was?"
"Yes, of course."
"I was in prison."
"Here in the Netherlands?"
"No. In Morocco."
"What for?" Immediately I felt like an ass for asking, but he was cool in his reply, validating my question.
"It was not for rape, or anything like that. It was not for any thing."
"Did you learn of it right away, do they tell you in prison?"
"We learned, but not right away. I was not so happy about it. I tell you, you go to America and tell your friends. You go to DC and tell your friends, I am part of Islam and they do not ask me permission to do this.
"A personal apology, for an event with shaky details and worldwide effect.
"I will tell them," I said. "I understand."
He nodded.
I said, "They do not ask me permission about things, either."
We sipped our drinks and understood.
This the entry of "D.C. Weather Report: Mostly Bad News" blog by Iggy Bloggit from Washington D.C. ...
"When I stepped off the platform (after taking a train from the airport to Amsterdam) I saw the future: people living artfully. I arrived into a performance of style and beauty, art and grace. Ahh the Dutchies. Striking and silent. Poise in the way they ride their clunky bicycles, drive their tiny cars. Beautiful and brilliant. Ongoing preservation of really old architecture and traditions of keeping an open mind, speaking openly and to the point, tolerating and living and loving together. Recognition of value in history and future. The past and future together, a perfect equation for a successful present.How do they do it? How does such a place exist, that lives art in every corner?
Even scaffolding and trash bins and mailboxes are decorated with simple illustrations or constructed in such a style to make them pleasing, to add to the collective. My impression is that it is history and an attitude of tolerance that has allowed them to appreciate life, to move beyond matters of disagreement and work together from all sides of political, religious, scientific, and personal perspectives and form a more perfect society. Oh, you are religious? Great, enjoy the meaning in the beautiful ancient churches. Oh, you are homosexual? Have a great life, we were the first country to legalize your marriage. Welcome welcome everyone, we may not all live the same way but we all live, all the same. Our differences make us more interesting.
When I look I can see golden age and holocaust, renaissance and crusade. Is "historically rich" really so important? My high school French teacher thought so, she made it clear what she thought of the US and none of us understood her distaste. That was a long time ago, I've come to understand what she meant. But never to the aching degree I felt in a land where I looked at the people and finally felt I'd found my other elf girl selves. They looked like me! Long and blonde and legs and creamy features. I love and hide behind my personal identity as the white minority in every place I've lived. This disturbed something in me, to see what I would have been if my family a few generations back had not left Western Europe. I felt proud to be European. But though my longings to explore further are directed away from the US, there is a certain cool thing about being American too, and surviving it :) After all we did just elect a black president... and yes, that is unbelievable worldwide still a year later, worth referencing again and again.
One evening I sat with friends outside a bar on the canal in Utrecht.A stranger sat down beside me, looked to be about 40. Big guy, Moroccan. Don't know which of us started it but we settled into a conversation, the bold honest talk of strangers.
"So you are not Dutch?" he asked.
"I am American. I live in Washington, DC."
"Oh, I like to meet an American," he said. I didn't ask him why, but a few minutes later he told me.
"So how old were you when all of this shit happen?"
"I'm 28," I said, trying to follow him.
"So 8 years ago. You were 20. You were in DC? What was it like there?"
"No," I caught up to his meaning.
"I was in Hawai'i. It was early in the morning. We all knew of it, right away."
"Ahh," he said. A few minutes later: "Do you like to know where I was?"
"Yes, of course."
"I was in prison."
"Here in the Netherlands?"
"No. In Morocco."
"What for?" Immediately I felt like an ass for asking, but he was cool in his reply, validating my question.
"It was not for rape, or anything like that. It was not for any thing."
"Did you learn of it right away, do they tell you in prison?"
"We learned, but not right away. I was not so happy about it. I tell you, you go to America and tell your friends. You go to DC and tell your friends, I am part of Islam and they do not ask me permission to do this.
"A personal apology, for an event with shaky details and worldwide effect.
"I will tell them," I said. "I understand."
He nodded.
I said, "They do not ask me permission about things, either."
We sipped our drinks and understood.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
