A Conference on Education

The Founding Fathers warned that a "free people" would not remain free without information, or education. Did the Founders mean formal education or information forthcoming from the government (or leadership)?  And what is eduation after all? It seems that today, we have had those that have "set a new vision" for change, that is to globalize the "nation-state". And globalization has been done in the name of the environment, poverty, and education.

This conference was led by elite educators, a community college President, a representative from a minority group, an innovative thinker, authors, and administrators concerned in general for our country and citizens's  future well-being.

The discussion covered aspects of the changing needs of our society, and the world and the change of the student population. Questions concerning tuition costs, and state budget strains were driving the innovative ideas, as well, as the ethical questions of business taking over such aspects of our culture.

The concern for the students of today, costs of education, the needs of society, and the preparation of the future work-force are all of grave concern. There were no solid solutions, except for the possibility of university "patronage".

University "patronage" is not a different concept, as the university was a "patron" of the Church in the Middle Ages. But, I just wonder how liberal an education might be under the auspices of the Church. We do have historical accounts as to how "open" the Church was to modernity/Enlightenment thinking. And how free are certain forms of learning, such as theology, law and medicine, when they are done under Kant's "form" or structuring of the university?

On the other hand, education under the auspises of government oversight is a centralization, beauracrazation and nothing unlike China's. The Church is a "patron" to the nation-state, as is education, itself in this "model".

Kant believed that the academics in other disciplines, the philosophers, made judgment over these three "higher forms" of education. The practical aspects of 'life', theology, medicine and law were to benefit society's "good", while the leisured philosopher was to "take his time" to understand the "finer things" of life.

Reason or the intellectual aspects of man are what make man different from the animal kingdom, and is to be cultivated, if we believe that civilization is of value. Otherwise, humans are prone to be a pawn of their lower passions. And so it is today, for the most part. The disciplined mind is not valued in our society anymore.

The generation that is facing the university today has been over-stimulated by many media "forms" and information outlets that have impacted how the brain recieves information. The previous way of teaching and learning, via 'content" dissemination is "dull" and "out of date" for most of today's students.

Europe is already establishing "standards" across borders, where information./ education can be shared. This is an 'ideal" concept, but what of the security of the West? How are we to protect against certain information that might be dangerous in certain segments of the world? Or do educators believe that education can be "co-erced" and recieved by these segments, so that change to the students might happen? And what of the governance of education, itself, if it is to be globalized? We see how "mass production" has affected education in our own country, so how do we "do" education in such a "global" context"?

I believe that research has proven that without stimulating the student where he volutarily desires an education, the information is "lost". The information will not be internalized, but disregarded out-right, or defensive strategies of rationalization will occur that support an irrational "worldview". This is what religions do all the time to support their "life".

The recent release of classified information has put many in danger of their lives, because to betray a 'faith" is a betrayal of 'god" which is blasphemous. And such behavior demands accountability and judgment! One will not overcome terror through a naive view of education. Terror is a 'worldview', and an experience of life. Cult de-programmers are needed to overcome such a mind-set.

Perhaps, the view that medicine, law, and theology, as a practical disciplines, should be "useful" under government auspices, since it is to benefit society, instead of individual physicians, lawyers, and individual theologians. Does this mean that those in these disciplines are "pawns of the State" and the philosophers? '

I believe that setting up such a "caste system" does disservice to philosophy itself, as well as underming certain segments of society, because it makes the "elite" more pompous about their certain discipline. And wasn't it the scenario that Nazi Germany set up to do their research? or the Roman Empire? Medicine, law, and theology supported such national ambition. Today, the problem is not with nationalism, but globalism. Whenever a universalization is sought there is a discrimination against another group. This is why the "individual" is important to America's understanding of liberty in individual conscience. A globalized world will be a world run by an identified elite, which will be "out in the open" oppression, because it will be considered "legal"!

I am afraid we are playing into the hands of those that want to destroy America's exceptionalism, as it concerns individual liberties and it will be done in the name of society, or "morality". One will be a communistic leaning, the other will be a theocracy under Shairia.

When Liberty Should Be Limited

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

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

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

LIBERTY OR EQUALITY

There has been some discussion in some of my readings about whether liberty or equality is of utmost importance. There seems to be a move in progressive circles to affirm equality over liberty. As equality is about the underpriviledged, the minority or the "outsider". The move toward equality is a global move to universalize resources and opportunities.

While equality is important if one is looking at discrepencies, is equality to be measure by outcome orl in opprotunity? One views equality in absolute terms, while the other affirms individual choice and value of self-responsiblity.

Redistribution of wealth is one such concern for the progressive. This is not about opportunity, but stealing another's goods and limiting free enterprise. Opportunity, on the other hand, is about making sure that another has a right to make a living, or get an education. But, opportunity, again, does not mean prescriptive measures of ensuring ends that may co-opt choices about the type of education or how that education or living is to "be". Again, the progressive wants to assure 'ends" or outcomes.

Liberty is valued by the conservative, as this ensures the right of the individual to take responsibility for self-governance. Self governance is the basis of civil society because laws cannot maintain liberty, as they limit or prescribe behavior. Liberty is about the ability to make life choices, without co-ercion.

Liberty is a value of liberal democracy because it means open, and engaging. And civil society must allow that opennes, otherwise we limit diverse viewpoints, and this hinders the democratic process itself.

Limited Government and a Balance of Power

"Power corrupts", we have often heard. And those that have experienced power over thier lives will agree that power corrupts and abuses those under its authority. Humans cannot control unintended consequences, this is one of the achievments of our Founding Fathers. They understood that without limited government and a balance of power, individual would live their lives under "abuses of power".

The way the Founders formed our government was by law, which protected liberty. Justice was understood as an inalienable right. This right cannot be taken or given, as it is granted by nature. It is an innate equality of human beings, in their "personhood" because of being "made in God's image".

Our country has provided for and believed in "equal opportunity". The Statue of Liberty stands for the American value of incorporation "the many'. So, our cultural value is diversity. Individual have a right to express their voice, find their place, and to be a free moral agent. These values have led many to come to our shores to find refuge.

We, as a people, must still adhere to the values of limited government and a balance of power. This means that we stand with the individual, and we defend against abuse of law and governmental co-erciveness.

"We" are the people, or the indivdual who make up our nation and protect, defend and provide for continual greatness by not maintaining a stance of silence or indifference to corruption in the areas of limitation of government and a balance of power.

The differeneces lie in how we go about understanding what our country needs at present, in today's climate that is far from our Founders. But, we must defend their basic values and not give up our Constitution!

What is Wrong With "Covenant"

On another blog, I read this morning where arranged marriages could be a way to "form" intimacy. The one response was affirming of this type of "legal commitment". But, I find there are some problems with this sort of "covenant".

"Covenant" is a term that was useful in biblical times to transmit a way of understanding relationships. Blood covenants were an exchange or co-mingling of blood to symbolize and exchange of life. One would take on the other's enemies, as the "other"'s life became one's own. This was the traditional understanding of marriage. It was a mutual exhange and co-mingling of "life for life". The two became one.

Scholars have disagreed as to whether the covenant (suzerain) was unilateral or mutual. Covenant theologians understood the covenant to be undertaken by God, as God was the only one who could fulfull his own demands (basing their understanding of the perfections of God). This was where predestination came into the understanding of "bibilical theology". Reformed believers believed that God predestined some to respond to his "understaking in the covenant", while others believed in various forms of "foreknowledge".

In the Old Testament one was allowed to take the life of the other, if the other had taken life. This was the basis of justice, an eye for an eye. "An eye for an eye" limited justice to equal measure, because of human's propensity to revenge. Revenge annihilates the other, instead of training the other to limit themself.

Covenant in the New Testament meant that what was considered to be an outside demand, became an inside desire. Evangelicals, or fundamentalists would believe that one would need a "new heart" to do what was demanded "under law". Ususally, these understood the "new heart" to come about by a "re-birth" or "born again" experience. Others believed that one was "born into" the family of God by baptism, or communion of life. Holiness people understood this to be "entire sanctification". One obeyed not from duty, but desire.

But, the Enlightenment undermined the view of covenant. Humans were no longer understood to be pawns under God, King or government, but "self". Holiness people understood this "discipline" to be the "fruit of the Spirit". Rationalists understood it to be discipline of habit. All understood it to be the result of a free choice.

The scientific disciplines were developing during the "modern age" where sociology and psychology were in their beginning stages of understanding human behavior, just as the natural sciences were the result of understanding "order in the universe".

Man was no longer a puppet under God, but understood to be "created in God's image". What does that mean, except that man is created to create, decide and choose for himself?

Liberty became the watchword of the Enlightenment, not covenant. Man was a free moral agent.

Today, the human sciences are grappling again with what it means to be human. Contingency has to be considered along with individual choice. Neuroscience has to be considered alongside psychological and sociological science. No longer is man understood in one demensional ways, as a wholistic view is sought.

The modern era brought us the disciplines we use to continue to understand and form what we will know tomorrow about man, society, and his environment.

What Does a Good Citizen Do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Side Note About Healthcare,

I heard last night and forgot to add, that the Healthcare plan is written in "conceptual language", according to Fox News. This legislation should be in legislative language, or legal language, so that later on down the road, those in power cannot interpret the legislation in the way they want, giving them an advantage and a lack of accountability.

Since our country is ruled by law, the way the law reads is cumbersome because it maintains an accountability to what it was to enforce. Whenever legalist use "open ended" language, then the courts have to determine how the law is to be enforced.

If legislation is done too tightly, then it leaves little room for negotiating real life conflicts with the market. But, if it is left too open ended, there is little use for it, except for those "in the know" to use it for their own ends.

Men Were and Men Are

Men were created to be free. This was man's natural state. But, man was not satisfied to be free. He must organize and structure his environment to best suit himself, to dominate others, nature and his social environment.

Men are now doomed to government's demands, and limitations upon choice. Men are doomed to serve instead of dominate. This and is the state of slaves under tyrants, dictators, Kings, "gods", systems, governments, laws, and nature, herself. Men are limited by such things.

So, man's need to dominate was his very enslavement. He organizes only to serve himself. He structures to form his understanding, so he can control others. And, so, all men are now enslaved.

Moral Development in the History of American Government and Society

Anyone who knows me either personally or from reading entries on this blog site, know that I have been thinking of faith, values, and government. Faith has many "colors", and even, shades and tones, within those "colors". This is why there must be a way to live together, a "one Nation under God, with liberty and justice for all". This is where our government's ideals of individual conscience, and religious freedom are values that are to be upheld in today's world. But, how did these understandings of government come about?

Norms in a particular society are the "ways" in which people are "supposed to bahave", there is an assumption that is based on "conditioning" through one's upbringing and the concurrance within the society itself. through relgious teaching or values Some traditional cultures that have not been "born into" the "modern" era, are still living within these particularized paradigms.

Social order is affirmed through various means of upholding the traditions' values and norms. Religion is a big influence in maintaining the social order and affirming behavioral standards.

In America, and the birth of the "modern era", tradition no longer held as much power over societal norms and values. Where society had lived within communal contexts, industrialization dissolved extended family ties and based societal norms on "social contract", "career advacement", and individualized reason. Society itself underwent a "moral shift and change that gave room for man's development, but also undermined man's need of social connection.

In Kohlbug's moral development, the traditional, societal, or "social order" stage of morality, was a "lower level" (conventional stage) than the higher developed 'social contract", or reasoned stage. The assumption is that the individual "self" and his reason was more highly developed, as it was based on our American "ideals" of social contract, the Constitution, which underwrote justice.

Instead of God, or an "elect" or a sacred priesthood that maintained a "social order", the individual and his use of reason was the basis of moral reasoning and maturity. Submission was to be voluntary and not demanded or imposed from the outside, as in authoritarian regimes (political or religious). Our form of government valued a liberal government that upheld individual conscience, where it concerned religious conviction.

Freedom of individual conscience was the "watchword" for the social order and structuring of the Constitution. Religion was given a" seat in the bus", but was not to head the bus's direction, as the Constitution separated Church and State for good reason. All men, no matter the religious affiliation, or none, were created equal with certian inalienable rights. These "rights" were not to be provided by government, but protected by government. Man was assured the freedom to pursue his own life's goals and purposes. America was a free society based on reason and conscience.

I find that American government has left its Founder's rationale of individual liberty, by socializing that liberty. American government cannot garuantee equality of outcomes, but it attempts to do so with social programs that inhibit personal initiative. A limited government has grown to become a ravenous beast that preys upon the people's taxes to sustain the government's purposes of provision, instead of providing protection of rights.

American people of the past had a duty to "god and country" because of their gratitude for the liberty that the government protected. Now, the ones provided for have little incentive and intiative, while those who are taxed beyond their voluntary choice feel resentful of government's intrusion on private property. Private property was a pivotal issue of individual liberty, as man worked and earned his due wage, as slavery and servitude was outlawed.

Our country was founded on the principle of religious freedom and individual rights. The two underwrites the indivduality that our society values and promotes the best environment for human flourishing.

The problem of late in American government is that whenever the law is interpreted by the judicial branch to protect the interests of the government (executive branch), when the executive branch appoints the judges on the Supreme Court, we have a conflict of interests within the government's structure. Balance of power and acccountability was what the Founder's sought to maintain, not to benefit the government, but to protect individual liberties.

We are a people, who are committed to "freedom and justice for all", but if justice is not done at home, we cannot with moral integrity grant it outside of home.

Just Thinking About....Torture

On Richard Beck's blog site, he is talking about tortue. Is torture right or wrong, and how do we understand our position?

Just recently it has been discussed whether the Bush adminstration should be held accountable to the torture of suspected criminals. The CIA was absolved, but certain lawyers who represented the Bush adminstration may be held accountable to providing a legal means to torture these suspects.

Again, the issue of sovereignty and law, is the "problem". Is our country a sovereign over its interests where it concerns national security? Or is universal human rights as defended by international interests of more importance? Where do self interests protect freedoms, and where do they deter international "peace"? Where do ignoring rights of individual suspects undermine human rights? And where does America have a right to defend its security and help the world defend freedom abroad, while sometimes furthering injustice in specific situations? This is certainly an imperfect and complex world.

Obama has released certain CIA tactics or torture, disregarding CIA concerns of releasing this "classifed" information. Obama is making a heroic attempt at internationalizing our coutnry.

But, what happens to the "law" if there is no balance of power? If Obama suceeds in prosecuting those who differ with him in interpreting the law, while keeping the "other voices' silent in the Congress and the media, suppressing information to the people. America will be changed without most of us even being aware!

I have written about my concerns of the U.N. before on this blog site. There is an attempt to give developing nations more of a voice. But, if these countries are barbaric in their understanding of government, then at what costs will our world pay? Those who think in terms of tribes, and people groups have not developed the individual's identity so that education and the market, and the econcomies can become what America's has been. Those who think in tribalistic ways are loyal to religious conviction. And when religious conviction is understood to be involved in the political realm, then, the world will be "at war" because politicized religion is a danger, as history has often illustrated!

I am afraid that just as in any organizational structure, there have to be those that are "foot soldiers" to carry out the vision or plan of the adminstration or leadership. If the world is one big organization, and everyone is to have equal opportunity, then who are the "foot soldiers" (nations that are to be the "underdogs")? And how is leadership to be decided upon and how are the laws against neopotism to be upheld? And how is leadership to be accountable? ETC. There are many kinks in the garment without us understanding the garments "wash and wear" directions. What if the garment "shrinks", or "becomes stretched beyond fitting for its purpose"? These are real economic, political, governmental, leadership questions.

Hopefully, most of us will not live in a tortuous situation without recourse, or resolution, while the ship is sailing on open waters, with little or no rudder and no map in view!

Addictions and Discussion in Yesterday's Class

Yesterday, I covered my husband's class on "Faith and Society Integration". It is a class on the science/religion interface. I have used the opportunity to focus more on policy and ethics, than on the scientific aspects.

One of the students had prepared and presented a paper on Cocaine addiction and shared in class about the changes in the brain that happened along with addiction. Understanding the strength of addiction and drugs in general, we got onto the topic of marijuana and its legalization.

This student said that the AMA had argued since the '20's for legalization of marijuna for medicinal purposes. And that legalization should happen not just for that reason alone, but also for the greater good of society. He argued that our borders which are now being bombarded by drug lords would decrease, as legalization would undermine their profiteering. And it just might hinder those who seek marajuna to become enamoured with harder more addictive drugs.

All of this led into a discussion about where, how and what determines what we legalize, and what we label as "sin". Who determines what is to be a legitimate value in a culture, etc. It was an interesting discussion, that I hope (and think) the students enjoyed as much as I did (at leas I hope so)!

Today's Thoughts on Relationships and Character

Today, I went to a friend's house to care for a child. We had agreed that I would come to her house around 3pm. Before the time arrived, my son and his finace' came over to visit. As I had not seen them in awhile, I was busy engaging in all of the plans for their upcoming wedding, when I realized that it was a little past 3. I called my friend to explain what had happened and that the time had slipped up on me. I asked if it would be okay to come around 4, which she agreed to.

As I was driving to her house, I was thinking about keeping promises, being dependable, and other such things that make for trust, which drew my mind to character.

I mulled over what constitutes good character and whether or not I had met the "standard" by calling my friend and explaining myself and basically asking for "grace".

I was giving her grace by going to relieve her in the first place. But, that still did not negate my responsibility, as I had an agreement, not in writing, but in verbal form. Because we are friends, I knew she would understand and it would not impune my character. Extraneous circumstances and specific characteristics of people and situations always are elements that can make a simple verbal agreement, complicated. If one is looking for a certain response that is the measure of character, then it is not based on relationship, but on "standards" of expectation, which may or may not say anything about character. My friend fortunately did not think any less of me for calling and explaining, nor for asking for grace, as it concerned her need.

I find that this is what good relationships are about, while formal contracts are based not on personal relationship, but on legal terms to protect interests of the parties involved. The law is the law. The law breaks down the relationship to duty, responsibility, obligation, and such kind, while relationships are bound by strings of commitment out of love, desire, choice, and respect. The law demands, while the relationship does not.

Then, I started thinking about how these two ways of responding are different types of human response in the world. The law defines and protects boundaries, which protects the value and interest of the other party, while relationship cares about the person, as an individual. The law is a way to engage another, as a human, deserving of equal respect, as the person in the contractual relationship, while relationship is a way to engage another on a personal level.

The law defines where individual's or separate parties are divided and then seeks to rectify the differences. This is how divorce cases work. It cannot make the other person stay in the relationship. It is only when both parties agree that the contract can be made negotiating the interests of both parties. This is a legal relationship, which binds the parties together, but does not make the parties committed to each other in any way, other than obligation, or duty. This is not love, but it is respect from afar.

In moral development responding out of fear is the lowest level of moral development. It would have been absurd for me to abruptly leave my son and his fiance' because I feared what my friend might think or do. I would not have been in proper relationship to her, nor would it say much about the trust and respect she had earned in our relationship, either.
Fear means that trust is broken, and one who responds out of fear of punishment in spite of a lack of trust is acting inapropriately, as relationship is first and foremost about trust and character. Trust is about experience with a person, in knowing their dependable reactions, and responses to situations. It is knowing the character of another and knowing that the character can be trusted and will at least act in an ethical way.

Whenever there is a change in the actions or attitudes of another, then there is pause for trust. Questions concerning the other's change need evaluation. This is only common sense. A lack of trust is the only human and healthy thing to do. Otherwise, there will be abuse to oneself, and an enabling of another. Love would consider why, not just that, another has changed and seek to understand. The law would not care.

Faith in Text, Tradition, or Life?

Dysfunctional systems are rampant within the Old Testament Scripture. Names such as Esau and Jacob, Saul, David and Jonathan, and Samson and Delilah all conjure up images that send messages about "meaning".

While most Christians understand these stories as Christian emphasis of historical revealation of God, aren't these stories also a challenge to our "modern sensiblities"?

When Jacob stole Esau's birth-right, the Christian believes this to sanction Jacob's desire to attain the "blessing of God" at "all costs", even lying to his father, with the help of his mother? Or Saul sacrificing was "out of order", which meant that he lost the Kingdom. Saul's jealousy over David, as God's choice highlights what extent jealousy will go. While some of these truths are human truths for today, some of the "spiritualized meanings" condone spiriutalized rationale for doing things that would be against modern understandings of 'justice". Most of us in the modern world would not condone this behavior. We understand such terms as fairness, which would not affirm the O.T.'s value of "attaining God's favor" through lying or pursuing God's favor through a "priesthood"'s sacrifice. Our understanding is based on the development of our laws, which protect us from lying, stealing and subterfuge.

Just recently my grandfather met with my cousin, who is the executor of his estate. In going over all of his assests, my cousin insisted that my grandfather write up the specifics to his will. This protects his interests from others doing what Jacob did, as it is not a matter of attaining God's favor, so much as doing what is just. Justice is defined by our understanding by our laws, which is equality under law. It has nothing to do with "God's favor".

Last night, a lady shared her experience with a local business that did business according to local custom. She and husband were buying a house and put up ernest money. When a three week period went by without any response from the other party, she and her husband went to investigate, only to find out that the couple had changed their minds. To this day, the lady and her husband have not gotten their ernest money back. Local custom trumped the law. Of course, I am sure that if they had pursued the case, there would have been some recourse, but would they have higher legal fees than the ernest money they paid, in the first place?

Traditions hold sway over people's minds when it comes to undestandings of justice, fairness, right and wrong. While tradition maintains a culture's values, tradition can also be misinformed and short-sighted as to a broader context and world. Tradition works at a lower level of moral development than our Constitution or legal system.

"Biblical Christians" don't even recognize that their understanding is disconnected from the real world in this sense. They are committed to the "ideals" of a Christian reality, without understanding that these realities are traditions. And even those who base their faith understandings on the text are also ill-informed to the limitations of their view because of their particular bias. This is blindness and ignorance.

I think that reason is a gift within that must be used to inform our consciences and convictions. Tradition inhibits the full use of our reason because of fear that we might displease God, because the text or the people of God are the arbitrators of truth. Believers , in this sense, are not free, but in bondage to fear. Faith is not to bring bondage and fear, but trust in life itself. Grace is the gift to be and choose in this life without fear and torment.

Peace in the Middle East

Peace cannot happen when domination happens if we believe in equality under law. Laws are made and defined by human beings. And humans should make laws that are just in representing everyone's interest fairly.

I am glad that there is discussion about the "feelings" of the situation, as it has recently been understood that humans reason more on the emotional spectrum than on an objective. It is again what is the meaning and value given to a certain issue? And that becomes hard to negotiate when the issues have different meanings and values...

Will peace come? We have hoped and we are waiting and watching.

Law and Order and the Purpose of the Modern State

It is so disturbing that Hamas is continuing to fire rockets at Israel. They are not a recognized state, and have caused much damage to Israeli/Palestinian relations.

Modern states maintain laws, which structure their governments and are markers of "order". This is a necessary structure-setting, as otherwise, there is not accountability and chaos happens. Hamas is not accountable to a state, as a state has not been granted to Palestine. Whether one agrees or not that this is unjust, the way in which Hamas is rectifying the situation is further breeding hostility, mistrust and hinders the cause of peace negotiations. This is where an international (transnational?) organization is necessary to bring order, but how does order look, when Palestine does not have any rights under law (as they are not a "state")?

I have come a long way in my thinking. Law is necessary for order, structure, which breeds an environment of flourishing for mankind. I am so thankful to leave in a free state!

All Want Respect and Sovereign Rights

This morning I was listening to a news broadcast about Iran's desire to be respected and have sovereignty over their national interests. All people and nations want this respect, at least, if they have had the opportunity to experience it.

I find it hard to resolve the problems of diversity, when globalization calls so loudly for unity. How do we resolve the differences across cultural values, differences, convictions, and commitments? One thing for sure any ideological commitment that is exclusivist in its claims is a dangerous mix in the global climate.

But, how do we protect national interests and security? These issues cannot be ignored when terrorists undermine our sense of security and peace. Security is secured by the "rule of law" and an understanding and respect for another's right to exist. But, countries that support or encourage terrorists activity, either by commission or omission, cannot be ignored either. I don't know the answer. But, I am concerned about my own country's security and peace. The values that our country upholds are ones that many have lived and died for. I, for one, am committed to see that it succeeds in its endeavors to remain at peace and promote democracy abroad.

Government is Man's Best Friend

Lately, I have been thinking about dogs, as dogs have been a part of my life since childhood. Dogs are considered man's "best friend", but government is a better friend. Government allows the freedom to enjoy dogs and other such "unnecessaries".

Why are dogs considered man's best friend? Dogs, if trained properly, protect thier owners and families. Properly trained dogs do not demand or dominate. Dogs are companions that benefit man's life as a social animal. The same is true of good government. Government protects and provides the freedom to choose how one lives their life.

Government is only as good as the leaders who lead. Leadership should be trained in the necessary characteristics of a "well trained dog".

A local advertisement in our paper a number of years ago bragged on "top dogs" and their advantage over 'underdogs". This type of thinking is based on market driven economic structuring and evolutionary thinking of survival of the fittest. It is nothing other than "dog eat dog". Our justice system is not based on such inequality. Justice is equality under law, no matter what class or ethnicity. Our laws protect and our government upholds those laws for the protection of our freedoms. No such freedoms are understood in evolutionary thinking, as natural selection will justify those who "rise to the top". Justification of the elite class was what the monied and powerful sought early in our country's history.

Leadership should not protect their own interests at the costs of the "underdog". Worker's rights activists sought to bring about a balance of power in these situations. While unions have brought about "justice" in certain instances, they have also brought about an attitude that undermines mutual gratitude between the owner and worker when it comes to capital. Each party vies to "win" over the other without understanding the mutual benefit of co-operation. The atmosphere of our "market-driven" economy has benefitted many, but has also led to a greedy competitiveness that has lessened the conscience of leadership in accountability. This must change, as our nation's future prosperity depends on it.

Just recently, I went to the American History museum in D.C. and was moved by our nation's history of seeking justice for those whose cause was not represented in our government! We must continue to seek this kind of justice for all within our borders, for it is only when justice rules at home that we can represent our values abroad. Americans have a history of seeking "freedom and justice for all". Let us not rest while there are areas of injustice that are protected by a priviledged class, that disregards all ethical limitations on power.

The Law and the "Gospel"?

I don't know about you, but when something is not settled with me in my thinking, I can't stop thinking about it, even in my sleep (which makes for a restless night (s)). Last night was such a night.

I had come to faith believing a gnostic "gospel"(otherworldly) of equality, justice and mercy, which is in effect, the fruit of love. The laws of our land are made with this standard. And since I have always felt "the little person", I was always taking up the cause of the "little guy" when I thought that justcie was not served. But, I never imagined myself in any place of authority, it was only in regards to the Law that was written on my heart.

Who are the little guys? The little guys are children, mothers, women, workers, minorities, and immigrants. Those who have no "voice" are the "causes of social justice". I can even think about it and it gets me upset. I guess I am "continually angry" as this is not a just world (so much for peace and goodwill to men!).

It is funny that I so berated the "cause of social justice" as that was not the "true gospel", but was in my naive years of "religion". This is why I have found myself resonating with the atheists. While I am still unsure about a "god", I am more and more sure about my desire to see all men as equal, which was the ideal of our founding Fathers. I guess this is why human rights have appealed to me and the issue that the U.N. will allow special "declarations" to the Islamic states under the name of religious freedom appalls me. Human rights means the every individual has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Islam does not allow women that right. And their judicial system is built upon a religious tradition that is legalistic in its implementation. Where Nazism was a political system that oppressed and was prejuidiced and brought about horrendous crimes against humanity, Islam is a religious one. America's cause to see freedom come to all nations, I think is a noble one, but how do we persuade those in power that freedom is good, when it would usurp their all-knowing, all-powerful position and allow others to have a "voice"? I don't know, but the whole subject intrigues me.

There has been much on the news and the blogs about the "shoe throwing incidence". My intitial response was not to look at the position of the President, as an "authority", but to look at the context. People of power must always understand the context in which they are speaking, just as our Secretary of State does when she travels and meets with dignitaries. The customs and social norms are important to affirm so that communication can remain open or be opened and there is no offense.

Conservative/fundamentalist Christians only see a separation of powers where if there is no submission to the "authority" then there is a lack of respect for God, as an authority. This is nothing other than cultish thinking. Justice is not sought, but a submissive attitude no matter the costs is required. This culture breeds inequality, as it accentuates differences of status. Of course, there will be times where roles are important to maintain, but as a whole, is one's attitude toward the "other" appropriate? That is my question and my concern. Our emotional health in feeling secure is based on social contract. It is only when we know that laws are respected that we know where we stand anad that we need not fear subversion, or control from those in "other positions, or roles'. When roles beomce our identity, then we feel threatened by those who question our authority and we desire to control, or manipulate others. When we feel we haven't been heard, "as an underdog", we seek justice and seeking justice is not wrong. It is right, because all men are created equal.

More and more I am seeing more clearly how I view Church and State. And I wonder if there will be anything left of my previous faith, when I am "through".

Development of the Individual Within Society

When I used to believe that evangelical inductive study was "truth", I understood that "context was king". Context meant what the text meant within the culture, and language of the given frame of "orginal meaning". Of course the context was understood with different textual "helps". I understood that there was diversity within the Church and understood many of the arguments which brought about separation or understandings of difference.

But, in postmodernity, there is a need to understand the human as made in God's image. What is a human being and how is one developed? This is a question that is not new, but is one that faces the Church in uncerstanding how people have come to understand their faith. In academic terms, this way of approaching the understanding of religion, is the psychology of religion paradigm.

Not only is the person's context to be understood, as this is what gives a person identification, but also, the person's way of interpreting, which is hard to define in America's diverse environment. Families are not built around tradition necessarily, as in the "old country". So, how does the psychologist understand someone else's faith? Some have said that it is not just cultural influence, but actual brain science, as neurobiology has many "new understandings" of what makes man, "man".

Experience is the everyday encounters with everything from what one reads, hears, but what one encounters through people and circumstances. I don't believe that man made in God's image will come to maturity without understanding themself as a separate individual, who understands that life is valued and valueable on many elements of "faith". How one defines faith depends on personal convictions and values.

Of course, some conservatives would find this problematic, as their belief that tradition is to continue to define truth, as any other way of thinking is idolatry or rebellion. I find that parenting has led me to believe otherwise. We support our children when they become adults, but helathy parenting wants them to grow into full responsible independent individuals. That does not mean that they disregard us as parent altogether, but that they only use our advice, as advice and don't feel compelled to believe as we do about any certain given area of conviction. I do not think that parents can take full responsibility for how their children turn out, as many factores influence and form the individual youg adult. We must, as parents, and teachers expose them to as amny opportunities as possible to broaden their world , so that they will be as free as possible from prejuidice and where they are biased, they understand and fully choose that bias.

This if the personal aspect of individual development. But, there is also, a moral responsibility toward our nation that is also an important value for the individual. I think that we live in a great nation, that is presently experiencing some challenges that we, the people, have been responsible for, but, these consequences are just the result of individuals seeking after their own interests at the expense of others. We cannot be a people without a moral responsibility and order that defends the values that we hold dearly, which is freedom and justice for ALL the people. If justice is compromised for those in places of power, then we will all suffer due to consequences that impinge upon our own freedoms. So, whenever anyone commits a crime, then there must be an understanding that we are morally responsible to hold the other to accountability. Justice maintains the structure that allows all of us to be "at peace" and seek our own interests within reason (reason being the consequences of not adhereing to law).

Terriorists are those who do not respect others in a just way. They seek to undermine our sense of security which is maintained by our laws. Therefore, it is imperative for us to hold these people to just laws and consequences that make them understand that the West will not allow disorder.

The Church, The State, Progressives and Conservatives

The Church has been understood as a universal community, at least by the apostle Paul. Perhaps a better terminology is the household of God, as Ken Schenck uses in Quadralateral Thoughts.

But, how is this universality understood today? Conservatives of course point to Scriptures, while the Progressives point to science. Conservatives believe that God made one humanity in Christ, while progressives believe that we are one humanity.

Conservatives do things for the glory of God, while progressive do things for the "common good", the betterment of mankind. Conservatives tend to understand their identity in specified and special terms. Progressives understand this tendency as group identification. Group identification distinctifies one group from another, as this was what has transpired throughout the course of history with any kind of group; religious, political, cultural, etc. Humans love to create an identity by maintaining their distinct boundary markers. But, progressives question whether some boundary markers are healthy to maintain.

The question of mental health and "the common good" is the question of one's reason for boundary markers. What is a healthy boundary marker? Both conservative and progressives would agree that a good boundary marker would be the personal convictions, or commitments of a person, or the laws that define a nation's culture. Laws define what is deviant. While deviancy is an important value to uphold in a civilized society, what defines unhealthy reasons for boundary maintainence?

When one describes an individual commitment or conviction, or a nation's laws, both conservative and progressives agree that these should be respected. But, religious identifiers or boundary markers are harder to rally full agreement. Religion defines itself upon the "rules of faith", but progressives question the "rules" as being "right" in describing faith, as faith is a personal commitment to value. Religion, on the other hand, has many ways of maintaining its group identity.

Religion bases its claims of identification of beliefs, a divine figure, a culture, group "rules". Religion delights in coformity and thinks of itself in conservative circles, as exclusivist. Relgion colors one's perception and perspective and breeds prejuidice, and the prejuidice is reinforced by sacred texts, or sacred persons. Progressives are more open to define religion in objectified terms.

With many distinctions between the conservative and progressive, there has been an attempt to unify both through "purpose" or "teleos". In Chrisiian circles, this attempt has been based on "the Kingdom of God" and the "common good". The public square meets the Church on the Church's "terminology' , while using the Church's gifts for "the common good" of humanity. There is nothing wrong with this unity of purpose, as long as all individuals that are affected are informed of the specific requirements upon their life. If a "purpose" is useful for the "common good" (pragmatism), especially if it is underwritten in the conservative's mind, by "God", then the State can bring about its plans in a peaceful and unified way.

True progressives, though, would question the wisdom of combining Church and State in this way, as it brings about an intrusion of government into private lives. Privacy is a value in American culture for it repects the individual. But, both conservative and progressive moralists bring "the rule of law" upon others in the "name of God" (reconstruction, restoration, or social gospel), to teach others about God's rule. I question how this is anything other than Shai ria Law, or Constiantine's Empire...

Although I am not clear as to how I view Church and State, I question the ways in which moralists understand themselves as a "superior" breed of humanity. Whether one rules as the Taliban, or "legislating the Pentateuch", both do not breed tolerance for difference, or an openness to intepretation of that law. Laws define a nation's values, and America was founded on freedom of religion and a separation of Church and State. This separation was not to be a "wall", as a Founding Father claimed, but was to maintain the boundary of public/private, so that individuals could come to their own convictions, values, and faith, which is found within the culture's social structures of family, church and comminity. Objectifying morals transgresses the universal ethic of "doing unto others", "the categorical imperative", even when the moralists is convinced of their "rightness" of conviction. The battle of morality should be for the conservative in love from a pure heart, while the progressive should use reason to explore morality's reasonableness in scienctific discovery and philosophical discussion.