Intellectual Questions Breed Uncomfortable Challenges

One of the plays we saw this past week-end, "Spinoza on Trial", challenged the social norm of Judiasm and the Church. One had to question which was of greater value or significance, reason or revelation.

Christianity has its roots in Judiasm but has developed whole theological systems to "explain God". Judiasm is more of a "wisdom tradition". The Christian faith in certain circles is an exclusive faith. And it is the theological tradition that underwrites the exclusivity.

Judiasm is a tradition that is handed down through the generations and is an ethnic identity, whereas Christianity is not in some segments of Christiandom. Christianity is a "gentile religion" and was underwritten by "Paul", using Jesus as a means to that end.

Judiasm is a tradition that is grounded in the real world of everyday life, not in the "ideal" world of an after-life. Judiasm is a humanistic understanding of life, not a de-valuation of human life.

Spinoza had the liberty to "think outside the box" of his Judiasm in what was called a tolerant Amsterdam. Spinoza's parents had fled the Spanish Inquisition and the Jews were told by the Dutch to remain silent concerning their religion. (The Dutch are Reformed and Catholic in thier religious background. ) Although Spinoza was Jewish, Spinoza had made a Reformed friend and had fallen in love with a Catholic girl. How was he to "be himself" apart from sharing his thoughts about God?

Spinoza's "God" was a god based on mathmatical precision that underwrote his logic. Because his intellect was a strong force in his life, he couldn't help but "think out loud" concerning his faith. But, his faith was a challenge to the ruling authorities to his Jewish community and the Dutch civic authority.

Spinoza found himself betrayed by the Reformed friend, and eventually shunned by his Catholic girlfriend. His thinking and questioning of theism was at issue in his trial. His mentor was torn over whether to stand with his student and his brillant challenge to "tradition", or to stand with his traditional community. What was he to do? Was he to loose his place in his own society to defend Spinoza, and what then? What about his own life?

His mentor chose to stick by his own community, even though he had to agree that Spinoza's logic was equal to none, and one could not question the thoroughness of his "solution" about God.
Spinoza's view of "god" was monistic. God was nature, or Nature was God. People's essence is "who they are". God was no longer seen as an outside source of value, but "what is" was and is God.

The fatalistic mentality has it problems and its benefits. Those that adhere to such a view can relax, and refresh themselves on the knowledge that all that is, should be embraced. But, is this fatalism wise? Is there no moral judgment or value? And what of evil? Is evil seen as part of God, too? Certainly, this is what scriptures teach, as there is no dualistic universe. God is one, in nature. His was as monistic view of God. And monism falls in line with a scientific view of man. But, is man only his physicality?

The real world does not function on such a view. The reality is, there are "weeds" and these weeds need to be seen in our own garden, as well as the world. And the judgment on the weeds are what we are responsible for. Terrorists are alive and well. Crime exists, social evils prevail and one doesn't have to be a "rocket scientist" to know that our society is being destroyed from within. How do we "see" the world and its problems? What do we think is important to do about it? These are practical questions that impinge on what one chooses to do with one's life.

Judiasm would see the need of rectifying societies "ills" and to do so, begins with the family. The Catholic tradition also would concur with this evaluation. The family is the environment of formation for the child and unhealthy families breed unhealthy children and disturbed young adults.

All the intellectual questions in the world will not answer the child's need for his family. So, Spinoza's mentor was impressed with his mind, but he chose to stick with his community for the overall importance and value of "heritage". The mentor was challenged to challenge his tradition's social conventions. In this case, social conventions were a more important value to uphold. Spinoza was banned from his community and his mentor oversaw the judgment.

How was the mentor to encourage the young Spinoza to 'think" and continue to do so? Was Spinoza's work important and of value? Why, of why not? Did Spinoza's challenge to his community bring about their own struggle to understand or was there a prejuidice that was born our of 'self-defense'? One must think about these things.....

Character, As the Unseen

Character is about actions, gifting, and personality. But, character is also about the internal motivations of a given action.

Does someone act in a certain way because it is the 'expected thing to do"? Then, the character of this person is a social conformist. These are people that "fit in" because they are understood to be the "good guys". But, is this considered to be the highest motivation of choosing a certain course of action? Certainly, people should act in ways that are usually expected, because this is what promotes social stability. But, if someone does something that is not according to conformity, then how is that action judged?

Some would judge a 'non-conformist' action by the action's results, others would judge the action's principle value, while still others, would judge the action itself as wrong because the action was not in accordance with "tradition", or social conformity.

Most of us are not consistant in our judgments, because we are not aware of why we judge a certain action. And some would never understand "consistancy" or "principle" as a "right action" , because these are people who believe that individuals are more important than "ideologies", agendas, or "principled conscience". These are considered the "humanists" amongst us.

Character cannot be understood by any one aspect, as character is about the whole "package of a person"; their action, their innate nature, their experiences, and their values.

Because people are so diverse in their understandings and "ways of being", free societies are the best form of government for human flourishing. Free societies can affirm the disciplines of scientific exploration and questioning the status quo that can help man understand what is best for human flourishing, and at the same time be humane in affirming opportunity for the individual as equal under law.

I Like "Positive Liberty"

I like the term positive liberty. I got the term "positive liberty" from another blog site I follow, American Creation. One of American Creation's contributors has a blog called "Positive Liberty", which I have visited on occasion. His name is Jonathan Rowe, and he is a lawyer.

As I have thought about the concept, "positive liberty", I have come to "see" an important, if not a prime value of mine, as well, as our country. "Positive liberty" means that the law and the country seeks to protect liberty. I am not saying that this is the stance of the blog by that name, nor of its contributors, Jonathan Rowe being only one. But, liberty is the highest value in American society. Some think this is a good thing, others do not. Where do we draw our lines and on what basis? (I am thinking on this myself.)

Our American society is guided by principles that allow freedom to individuals as "equal under law". But, social conservatives have always understood society as a narrowed liberty to the social norms as defined by one's social group, mostly by parochial standards. But, our society has changed over these two hundred plus years, where many of the social ills of the past were taboo, today, we do not see many, if any social taboos. And with our enlightened understanding of science, we are even more open to re-define what makes for a flourishing society. But, if science is what defines our society today, are there to be any limits upon scientific investigation? And on what rationale is science to be limited?

Crime will always be considered taboo, but even crime has become defined or specified by science. A criminal is dealt with according to an enlightened view of the person, and their motivations and not just the crime or social norm, itself. We are, after all, a "humane society".

But, what happens when society's leaders have no moral inhibition to such things that were forbidden in the past and even, go to the extent of stretching the law's intent to the benefit of the "legalist"? This is why we have such ethical problems today in our leaders, whether governmental, or corporate. And recently, these same indiscretions lay at the doorstep of the Church, as well. This is where we are today. And our country is not "greater for it, either".

Although I understand the pro-life stance, I cannot take that stance legally, because of the "humane" aspects or the personability of our country's values. Prohibition used to be America's stance toward alcohol, as society feared alcohol's consequencs on the individual and society. And those that chose to seek out the "moonshiners" did so, sometimes at their own expense. We have done away with these laws and some still think that our country has "done wrong" in defending the use of alcohol.

The issue of abortion, with today's view of evolution, where there is "no speical creation, or "special creator" also, has to be evaluated on a rational basis. This is a scientific question and not just a moral one. An un-wed mother, though accepted more in our society than in the past, is in a crisis. And although there are many "crisis" pregnancy centers that seek to counsel those that are in "dire straights", (which is a good thing), what is to be the behavior toward those who still choose to have an abortion in a civilized society? And should society allow what some consider a medical procedure, because they do not adhere to "scripture" as interpreted by the social conservative? Nor do they acknowledge special creation? Should a civilized society allow a pregnant woman to get an abortion, as they used to in the "back alley", where death might be the liklihood? What is MOST humane and reasonable to society and the woman?

And if the woman has the baby, and chooses to keep the baby, what is society's responsibility for the child, and should society be responsible for such children and why? Where do personal and societal responsibility intersect? And at what costs to society, and the child?

A similar concern for society is sexual education. How is society to meet the needs that the family used to provide? What is society's responsibility? Is there any, and if so, what are the educators supposed to do with sex education, when there are many moral issues that all members of society do not agree upon? Should taxes go to support what I, personally do not value? If not, and it is legal, how do I resist such abuses to my conscience?

Homosexuals are also "up in arms" over their right to marry in our society. Should they have a right? Should we divide marriage, as many European countries do in civil and church unions? What is to be valued most in our society, liberty of conscience, or moral definitions, and then what church is to define the moral definition for our country, when our country does not allow a "state church'? Are our Protestant churches supposed to "submit' their consciences to the Roman Catholic Church? Or the Greek Orthodox? Or the Russian Orthodox? Who is to be the arbitrator of such societal situations?

An atheist that seeks public office should be allowed to serve our country, shouldn't they? This is a question now being considered in Asheville, N.C. where an atheist is being challenged. Is this appropriate, when our country allows liberty of conscience concerning religious values ? Just because a person doesn't define God according to my definition, should that ban them from public service? What about a Buddhist, Unitarian Universalist, or Muslim serving our country in public office?

Today's challenge is to be humane in a society that is not perfectly accomodating to our own personal social "ideals". We still need to be civil and inclusive in our discussions of the issues that concern us, when another challenges our personal convictions and beliefs. Otherwise, our society will dissolve into tribal mentalities and tribal survival instincts. And we will not represent the ideals of our Founders in upholding the values of liberty and justice for all....

When Someong Thinks They "Know Your Name"

Names are important, as they give us a way to hear and understand when another is addressing you. Marketing and leadership "ideals" always emphasize knowing someone's name to "make the sell". So, names are important. But, I am not talking about a name of adressing someone casually, but knowing someone. That is the issue of "knowing someone's name".

The height of arrogance and disregard for another individual is when one assumes or presumes upon another, without the relationship. The relationship is an ongoing understanding of what another is facing and what another's life values and purposes are. These are always changing, as we grow and encounter different "contingencies" in our lives. This happens a lot with parents as they learn to "grow with their children". Children are not "written in stone", but are growing individuals.

I have found that I didn't really know my children deeply, as they were only persons to be "controlled" so that their "outcome" would be something that I had in mind. I hurt for me and them, because this is not the way of making a relationship "work".

But, since they have grown, I have come to understand them better, but it doesn't help the ache I have inside because I had an "agenda' of making them "obedient". Otherwise, they could not get along in life. What I really did was hinder their self-confidence and undermine their efforts at "finding themselves". I have repented and they are now growing and flourishing adults.

There is something about 'agendas" or goals that gets in the way of relationships. These agendas or goals are defined by everyone co-operating and "being in their rightful place". This is proper understanding of organizational structuring. But, an understanding of leadership also affirms the value of the individual on the team. No one should feel they are part of an agenda, or "purpose", even if it is formulated in "God's will".

In fact, using "God" in this way, I think is 'taking God's name in vain", because if man is created in God's image, then we will respect the right of another to have differences of opinion, values, and convictions. There is no "one size fits all" in this 'image".

Social contruction or social engineering defines the outcome all too strictly. This is an undemocratic way of functioning in society. And it breeds all kinds of discord, from economic to familial relationships, as I have shared.

"Knowing someone's name" is personal, because humans are personal beings. Though we have many things in common with the animal kingdom, we are more than the animal and treating another as an animal only heightens their resistance. Unfortunately, those who view humans as animals, will define resistance as "animal behavior" that must be controlled. This is when revolutions occur, as there is no other option for freedom of individual conscience and personhood.

Humans need to be respected and valued in thier own right, and this is the value of our form of government, where individual voices can be heard. Leaders in our government are "Representative", because liberty is of ultimate value and concern in "moral structuring". And whenever the "moral structuring" hinders the ethical ideal, our government allows grievances to be heard in our courts.

Reading on Dictatorship and Democracy...

I have been picking up a book the last few weeks (which I would suggest doing in "one sitting", as it is more conducive to process fully), called, "Democracy and Dictatorship", by Zevedei Barbu. It is a fascinating book, but the part of it that refers to what I have been addressing today is on unifying and diversifying elements within democracy. These are elements of value.

On page 66-68, he refers to the diverse values of
1) Religion is a defining value in a democracy, which is characterized by a "feeling of supra-individual and transcendental order". Religious values via anthropological studies show that religious values bring cohesion in behavioral standards. These values create social norms.

2)Aesthetic values are based on the concept of form. These values do not bring cohesion, even in the relgious realm, because the individual must create his "own world" of meaning through experience.

3.) Scientific values are based on analytical analysis of what works. It is integrative only as long as it establishes relationship between facts, but disintegrates the answers to life with only questions.

4.)Political values are integrative, as they help to form group dynamic, so goals can be accomplished.

5.)Moral value is integrative as moral action is taken as long as there is a consciousness of being a part of a group or society.

6.)Economic value is disintegrative in modern societies, as the individual seeks ownership.

Since the Renaissance, there has been a tendency for these values to undermine religious value and a tendency for autonomy in each cardinal value. A balance among the integrative and disintegrative values are important for democracies.

I think that this is the "fix", public debate and discourse concerning these values within the context of historical development after the Renaissance.

Justice, Moral Values, and Universals in Public Policy

Justice is maintaining equality under law. It is balanced and informed governing and government. Everyone is enriched, and blessed when government runs as it should, which is inclusive of the purpose of government.

Government is comprised of leaders who rule, make the rules, and determine direction. While our government is run by policy that is made by leaders, policy itself is fully informed (or should be) before determining which and what policy should be legislated. Legislation makes demands upon all of us, as policy is to better society. And better societies are for human flourishing.

Today, during an honor's college luncheon, a scholar whose discipline was political science gave a talk about the interface of Christian faith with the university, society, and public policy. The Christian traditionally had understood all of truth to be informative of "God's world". Thus, the disciplines were studied to further and undergird faith, not the other way around. But, what happens when science undermines a particular understanding of faith? This is where the Christian world is today, as each discipline has its own "story" or understanding of the "facts". What is the universalizing or whole understanding of truth? Postmodernity calls for there to be interdependence of the disciplines, which is responsibility and accountability of knowledge.

This scholar argued that the secularization of the university was the result of separating faith from "fact" (this was not her term, but mine). I also believe that all Truth is God's Truth. This means that there is no special revelation, but that all is revelation, as we learn and grow. But, I also believe that what we know is but "in part" therefore, there should be a real and honest humility in our policy making and listening to the various "experts".

One legal case study of a particular situation is not a valid argument to make for universiality, when it comes to moral universals, unless the Supreme Court so rules. But, it may influence courts in sucessive cases. So, it is important that the facts are all known. So I do not believe that a relgious authority, whether in Church or text, should be the universal determinant of the value of life. Science should be consulted in such cases, and not the Church alone. The Church should not be an oppressive ruling party, such as the Taliban, but a "voice" in our public square. And that voice should not be a shrill, unreasoned, irrational voice of fear and intimidation, but one of reasoned hope. A voice that appeals to reason and not filled with emotion. Reason is what postmodernity needs most.

"Universal" morality is defined in many ways. The arguments are always based on authorial sources, outside the "self". These sources in the Quadralateral are reason, scripture, tradition, and experience. Since postmodernity has undermined absolute reason, contextual texts, specific traditions, then the experience of the individual is all that is left, as a universal. Experience is only of value when one is appealing to a more unified way of arguing for moral value, which is "human experience". Human experience is based on a hierarchal "need" base, such as Maslow argued. But, even in arguing and agreeing on the universal of human experience and universal human needs, one does not validate a specific universal moral value. (Is poverty more important than education? It depends on the context. Is pastoring a Church more important than encouraging a young adult to pursue their dreams?)

Our country's values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are of greatest moral value to our people. Without liberty, one does not have life, as life must be free to choose what is of ultimate value. Liberty is not freedom to do anything one wants, such as cheating, lying, or stealing, but it is for seeking what one desires to be of value in one's life to bring happiness, and benefit society at large.

Life is of universal value as all people have it, but not everyone has liberty. We must fight for freedom above all because dominating traditions, or different voices that want to universalize the insignificant are undermining to the individual in their pursuit of happiness and their value of life.