Ayn Rand
If a country’s government undertakes to fight a war for some reason other than self-defense, for a purpose which the citizens neither share nor understand, it will not find many volunteers. Thus a volunteer army is one of the best protectors of peace, not only against foreign aggression, but also against any warlike ideologies or projects on the part of a country’s own government.
C:TUI 226
This statement captures the essence of liberty, which is peace. And Rand grasps the concept that volunteerism to military duty, is correlated to self=defense and not ideological commitments, or agendas! No one likes to be co-cerced. Co-cercion demeans and demoralizes humans and treats them as commodities or of expendable value.
That means that to remain a free people we must not war along ideology (religion or politics) or independent agendas (without co-operation/negotiation). It becomes complex when there are so many agendas that clash with another's. And what about a nation's values if they conflict with another's? Will there be consensus building in determining how to go 'forward"?
Diplomacy is needed more than ever today, because the world is wrought with so many conflicts. The wars our country is involved in now, have not been declared "wars" by Congress from the beginning. Though there needed to be some response to the 9-11 incidence, was there consideration about all the reprecussions?. Self Defense is important for any entity that has separate interests or distinction. This is important to the nation-state herself! We have to maintain a "voice", otherwise, the nation-state's distinctive voice, will loose power and then, only a few will be heard. And just as the individual without any "voice", the minority position, power will win over and enslave all of us!
Showing posts with label nation-states. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nation-states. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Sunday, May 22, 2011
"The Gospel" and the Modern State....
What has "happened" to the "Gospel" and "The Church" in Modern society? How do we understand life, and time and text and tradition?
Much has transpired over time that makes it hard to hold to "biblical faith" or "biblical Christianity". Christians believe that history is "God"'s time/story. Westerners think in linear terms concerning their faith. There is a beginning and an end. God created the heavens and the earth and Christ is to come again. Faith is understood within the text as a developing story, God's story in Christ. Salvation was understood as "accepting" the story, and identifying with a Christian community. How faith communities understand themselves is the real issue after the Protestant Reformation.
Faith, as Protestants undestand it, is what liberty of conscience is to our Founders. Therefore, the Protestant Principle "works to fragment "faith" into diverse communities. The Roman Catholic Tradition understands itself as a political community, because it determines what each person's duty is to remain within it "graces". Such a political stance might grant crimes and punishments against the Church, but not necessarily against the nation-state, as these are seen as "spiritual" offenses. Since the West values a linear view of history, change is assumed.As America is primarily understood as a Protestant nation, how did America come to understand "Faith"?
Much has transpired over time that makes it hard to hold to "biblical faith" or "biblical Christianity". Christians believe that history is "God"'s time/story. Westerners think in linear terms concerning their faith. There is a beginning and an end. God created the heavens and the earth and Christ is to come again. Faith is understood within the text as a developing story, God's story in Christ. Salvation was understood as "accepting" the story, and identifying with a Christian community. How faith communities understand themselves is the real issue after the Protestant Reformation.
Faith, as Protestants undestand it, is what liberty of conscience is to our Founders. Therefore, the Protestant Principle "works to fragment "faith" into diverse communities. The Roman Catholic Tradition understands itself as a political community, because it determines what each person's duty is to remain within it "graces". Such a political stance might grant crimes and punishments against the Church, but not necessarily against the nation-state, as these are seen as "spiritual" offenses. Since the West values a linear view of history, change is assumed.As America is primarily understood as a Protestant nation, how did America come to understand "Faith"?
Friday, February 18, 2011
A Global Move Via Healthcand Teacher's Unions
The recent judgement that Obama's healthcare plan is unconstitutional is in appeal. But, that doesn't seem to matter to those that seem to be committed to a "higher law" or "greater purpose", and that is underming State authority.
It seems to me that power grabs by centralization was NOT what was in mind of our origninal government strucuturing! The State was to be Sovereign in their own affairs. But, if the adminstration holds the States accountable to this healthcare initiative, it may just bankrupt the States. Would the Federal government step in to "fix the problem", by centralizing power? It would be a devious move and determined poiticians to attain more centralization of power and our GNP.
On the other issue that is bombarding America is the issue of teacher's and unions! Unionization is also a way to centralize government through the board of education, instead of the State being responsible, the Nation would be responsible. Would educational institutions be forced to conform to a national standardization of education? Again the minds of the young will be in the hands of the few.
Granted that sometimes standards are necessary to ensure that basice are taught and undestood in our nation. It is in the nation's interests that the population be educated.
But, will there be an attempt to unify across the boundaries of the nation-state? Would this be the first step to a "global governance" and "World Citizenship"? How and who will determine what kind of govenrment and what laws will be implemented. Hopefully, fundamentalists will not gain enough popularity to gain a foothold that would deter agreement as to globalized standards. Can gloablization be in the best intersts of the inidivual? I don't think so, because as government increases in size the more beaucratic regulation must be created to maintain "social order" and structure.
Will such a globalized govenrment have a balance of power? Will there be a world-wide election? Or will we be tehcnically, practically, or symbolically under a dictator?
The balance of power and structuring in our government was a delicate one. I don't think that such structuring would be an easy one for the globe. And really, I don't think that the purpose of our government is really what is desired, i.e. balance of power.
Hopefully, that last bastion of liberty, i.e. America will not be destroyed before we can have another election, so "the people" can protect their rights, as well, as their nation's.
It seems to me that power grabs by centralization was NOT what was in mind of our origninal government strucuturing! The State was to be Sovereign in their own affairs. But, if the adminstration holds the States accountable to this healthcare initiative, it may just bankrupt the States. Would the Federal government step in to "fix the problem", by centralizing power? It would be a devious move and determined poiticians to attain more centralization of power and our GNP.
On the other issue that is bombarding America is the issue of teacher's and unions! Unionization is also a way to centralize government through the board of education, instead of the State being responsible, the Nation would be responsible. Would educational institutions be forced to conform to a national standardization of education? Again the minds of the young will be in the hands of the few.
Granted that sometimes standards are necessary to ensure that basice are taught and undestood in our nation. It is in the nation's interests that the population be educated.
But, will there be an attempt to unify across the boundaries of the nation-state? Would this be the first step to a "global governance" and "World Citizenship"? How and who will determine what kind of govenrment and what laws will be implemented. Hopefully, fundamentalists will not gain enough popularity to gain a foothold that would deter agreement as to globalized standards. Can gloablization be in the best intersts of the inidivual? I don't think so, because as government increases in size the more beaucratic regulation must be created to maintain "social order" and structure.
Will such a globalized govenrment have a balance of power? Will there be a world-wide election? Or will we be tehcnically, practically, or symbolically under a dictator?
The balance of power and structuring in our government was a delicate one. I don't think that such structuring would be an easy one for the globe. And really, I don't think that the purpose of our government is really what is desired, i.e. balance of power.
Hopefully, that last bastion of liberty, i.e. America will not be destroyed before we can have another election, so "the people" can protect their rights, as well, as their nation's.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Context Is Important to Identity
Rules/laws define and bring clarity and this is important for any society. Today, though, these rules or the laws in our Constitution are being dismissed because of higher, more alturistic goals. But, such thinking leaves little room for identification factors or for justice. Justice, in this context, means respect for the society that is defined by such rules and protection for the members/citizens of such a context. Justice is defined by protecting and upholding the "rule of law'.
Today's scientists wonder if one's identity is defined by one's environment, or one's universal mind via categories. If one's identity is defined by one's environment, then it is suggested that people need to be exposed, so that their identity can be expanded to be "inclusive". "Humans", after all, are all similar.
On the other hand, if it is suspected that the human mind holds the universal categories, then education is the answer to such questions. Education would inform the mind of its moral obligations to the 'human race". But, what of diversity of interpretation of such exposure, or the creative element of the mind? or coginitive affirmation of one's "religious frame"? Even though the mind can be stimulated does that stimulation bring about the same response, behavior, or understanding? How does previous experience impact how one interprests such stimulation?
What if 'universal identity is a undefined identity? What if the mind needs a context to define itself? What if the mind uses difference to determine identity, and not uniformity? Understanding oneself in opposition to another doesn't necessarily mean oppostional behavior. It would only help to clarify and distinctify and bring more understanding to the "table" in negotiation.
I think we have found that the religious hold to identification factors apart from "constitutional forms of government" or "self-identity", as a chosen identity. Constitutional forms of government' allow for a more definitive identity via religion. But, this is a problem for the modern mind that identifies with a nation-state, and a religious tradition that undermines the "humane laws" that the nation-state holds. How is identity to be expanded or informed without undermining the nation-state? And should one consider such religious identity as a " human right"? Some don't believe that such identity can be changed. And this is why they call for America to take care of its own business.
So, which is it, environment or education that is to be the "enlightenment" of identity? And how does one know if the identity is internalized such that it would be highly improbable for the religious to re-identify? De-conversions happen all that time, but only within the context of a free and open society. So, what should we do? Should we be engaged with spreading democracy and constitutional government? Should we continue to trade with such environments? Or should we leave the religious alone hoping that they will leave us alone?
Today's scientists wonder if one's identity is defined by one's environment, or one's universal mind via categories. If one's identity is defined by one's environment, then it is suggested that people need to be exposed, so that their identity can be expanded to be "inclusive". "Humans", after all, are all similar.
On the other hand, if it is suspected that the human mind holds the universal categories, then education is the answer to such questions. Education would inform the mind of its moral obligations to the 'human race". But, what of diversity of interpretation of such exposure, or the creative element of the mind? or coginitive affirmation of one's "religious frame"? Even though the mind can be stimulated does that stimulation bring about the same response, behavior, or understanding? How does previous experience impact how one interprests such stimulation?
What if 'universal identity is a undefined identity? What if the mind needs a context to define itself? What if the mind uses difference to determine identity, and not uniformity? Understanding oneself in opposition to another doesn't necessarily mean oppostional behavior. It would only help to clarify and distinctify and bring more understanding to the "table" in negotiation.
I think we have found that the religious hold to identification factors apart from "constitutional forms of government" or "self-identity", as a chosen identity. Constitutional forms of government' allow for a more definitive identity via religion. But, this is a problem for the modern mind that identifies with a nation-state, and a religious tradition that undermines the "humane laws" that the nation-state holds. How is identity to be expanded or informed without undermining the nation-state? And should one consider such religious identity as a " human right"? Some don't believe that such identity can be changed. And this is why they call for America to take care of its own business.
So, which is it, environment or education that is to be the "enlightenment" of identity? And how does one know if the identity is internalized such that it would be highly improbable for the religious to re-identify? De-conversions happen all that time, but only within the context of a free and open society. So, what should we do? Should we be engaged with spreading democracy and constitutional government? Should we continue to trade with such environments? Or should we leave the religious alone hoping that they will leave us alone?
Saturday, October 23, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Immigration Policy, As a Principle of Humaness
The current crisis in our immigration policy has been exasperated by Arizona's "new law". Or is Arizona creating "new law"? Isn't Arizona just upholding our national boundaries that protect and define its citizenry? And what of the immigrants that have come to her for "refuge"? What about America, as a 'humane culture and society? Where do boundaries begin and end and where should they?
Arizona has argued that their law on protecting Americans from infilteration of illegals is one that is based on Constitutionality and compliments the federal standards. If the judge determines that Arizona is correct, many States will probably follow Arizona's lead.
The other side argues that immigration policy is solely the responsibility of the federal government, as the federal government is the "United States", therefore, a State does not have the right to supercede federal right.
Many such arguments have been made in the past, such as with the Civil War and the slavery issue. Do States have rights of protecting their economic viability over and above a "universalized and standardized" way of being in the world? Should the Southern States have been allowed to give the right of choice to their slaves with the possibility that the slaves would continue in their service to their masters? Or is slavery wrong in a universal sense and shouldn't be allowed, because of the universiality of the human? I think there is a distinction between slavery as forbidden and the treatment of slaves as humane or inhumane. The issue is whether the slave is voluntarily cooperative and willing and whether the "master" is humane in his treatment of his slave. Everyone cannot be the 'master"....but the slave should have a right to liberty, if he chooses. (Master= leader and slave=employee).
The immigration problem is a situation that is similar. Illegal immigrants means that there is a standard whereby we maintain public order, by establishing these laws to protect from those that would not benefit our society. In fact, illegals may be allowing the dissolution of our national security with terrorists. Such tolerance would be suicide, nationally.
I do believe that America is a humane nation, when it comes to our ideals. The suggestion that illegals could be given a chance to go "back home" without prosecution is a good one. Perhaps, these illegals would be given a certain amount of time for "grace'. Then, prosecution should be swift and strong.
We cannot ignore how politicians in the past have used the amnesty of illegals to pack the votes in at our polls and distort our "real voice" as a nation!
We cannot continue to tolerate the undermining of our borders. Otherwise, there is no reason to continue our identity as a nation-state. Our borders should define who is "in" and who is "out". And we should not feel guilty for such definition, because such definition demands respect. The humane choice is to continue our immigration standards, with naturalization. And it is obvious that because there are so many that want to be a part of our nation, that we must be doing something right!
Princple CAN be Humane!
Arizona has argued that their law on protecting Americans from infilteration of illegals is one that is based on Constitutionality and compliments the federal standards. If the judge determines that Arizona is correct, many States will probably follow Arizona's lead.
The other side argues that immigration policy is solely the responsibility of the federal government, as the federal government is the "United States", therefore, a State does not have the right to supercede federal right.
Many such arguments have been made in the past, such as with the Civil War and the slavery issue. Do States have rights of protecting their economic viability over and above a "universalized and standardized" way of being in the world? Should the Southern States have been allowed to give the right of choice to their slaves with the possibility that the slaves would continue in their service to their masters? Or is slavery wrong in a universal sense and shouldn't be allowed, because of the universiality of the human? I think there is a distinction between slavery as forbidden and the treatment of slaves as humane or inhumane. The issue is whether the slave is voluntarily cooperative and willing and whether the "master" is humane in his treatment of his slave. Everyone cannot be the 'master"....but the slave should have a right to liberty, if he chooses. (Master= leader and slave=employee).
The immigration problem is a situation that is similar. Illegal immigrants means that there is a standard whereby we maintain public order, by establishing these laws to protect from those that would not benefit our society. In fact, illegals may be allowing the dissolution of our national security with terrorists. Such tolerance would be suicide, nationally.
I do believe that America is a humane nation, when it comes to our ideals. The suggestion that illegals could be given a chance to go "back home" without prosecution is a good one. Perhaps, these illegals would be given a certain amount of time for "grace'. Then, prosecution should be swift and strong.
We cannot ignore how politicians in the past have used the amnesty of illegals to pack the votes in at our polls and distort our "real voice" as a nation!
We cannot continue to tolerate the undermining of our borders. Otherwise, there is no reason to continue our identity as a nation-state. Our borders should define who is "in" and who is "out". And we should not feel guilty for such definition, because such definition demands respect. The humane choice is to continue our immigration standards, with naturalization. And it is obvious that because there are so many that want to be a part of our nation, that we must be doing something right!
Princple CAN be Humane!
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Does the Nation State Have Rights?
Much has been written about "colonialism',"empire", imperialism, Statism, and the nation-state's status in general. Most of these labels have a certain view of universiality about "humanity" and rights. But, what is good about the nation-state?
The nation-state has defined boundaries, where people can create their societies within their governmental form/frame. The nation-state protects its citizens, in our free and open society by its laws. Citizens have a right to appeal, as the individual is respected in his own right.
Globalist and globalism is an agenda that pushes negative labels on America, as a nation-state. And these labels are really to impugn America's reputation so that globalists agenda can broaden their impact and appeal. And the globalists use religion just as the Statist do.
Globalism is really about commerce and trade. Trade and commerce have happened for eons of time, because people always want to promote economic progress in their own country. But, those nations that colonized other countries are viewed as arrogantly asserting their power and right over another country. And this is the height of arrogance to those that are committed to the human rights cause, or environmental causes.
These global "causes" are not the only "causes" in the world, but to those that are so committed, it seems so. Otherwise, they would not be doing what they are doing. And more power to them!
The nation-state does have interests, and these interests are not wrong, because interests help the nation to survive, as long as corporate power do not grab the reigns of power to subvert Congress' right/duty to representation.
I think the ideals of our nation-state from the Founding are ideals worth fighting for. And these ideals are individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Some have tried to "sell" the centralized beauracracy as an evil in and of itself. While I will never think that beauracracy is the best way of government's functioning, I do believe that our nation has a right to exist in the midst of other nations.
Federalists argue that without the distribution of power at the State level, then we have erred according to Constitutional standards. And these think that the State should not have a standing Army or have any investment in foreign policy. These believe that the Army's ideal of liberty is used to subvert other governments, for political/economic purposes. As stated before, political and economic purposes are the life blood of the nation/state.
A similar usefulness for religion is to get people "on board" voluntarily and to agree, so agendas by leadership can be carried out with little resistance. One must wonder what principle leaders such as these adhere to. Is it the principle of power?
The nation-state has defined boundaries, where people can create their societies within their governmental form/frame. The nation-state protects its citizens, in our free and open society by its laws. Citizens have a right to appeal, as the individual is respected in his own right.
Globalist and globalism is an agenda that pushes negative labels on America, as a nation-state. And these labels are really to impugn America's reputation so that globalists agenda can broaden their impact and appeal. And the globalists use religion just as the Statist do.
Globalism is really about commerce and trade. Trade and commerce have happened for eons of time, because people always want to promote economic progress in their own country. But, those nations that colonized other countries are viewed as arrogantly asserting their power and right over another country. And this is the height of arrogance to those that are committed to the human rights cause, or environmental causes.
These global "causes" are not the only "causes" in the world, but to those that are so committed, it seems so. Otherwise, they would not be doing what they are doing. And more power to them!
The nation-state does have interests, and these interests are not wrong, because interests help the nation to survive, as long as corporate power do not grab the reigns of power to subvert Congress' right/duty to representation.
I think the ideals of our nation-state from the Founding are ideals worth fighting for. And these ideals are individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Some have tried to "sell" the centralized beauracracy as an evil in and of itself. While I will never think that beauracracy is the best way of government's functioning, I do believe that our nation has a right to exist in the midst of other nations.
Federalists argue that without the distribution of power at the State level, then we have erred according to Constitutional standards. And these think that the State should not have a standing Army or have any investment in foreign policy. These believe that the Army's ideal of liberty is used to subvert other governments, for political/economic purposes. As stated before, political and economic purposes are the life blood of the nation/state.
A similar usefulness for religion is to get people "on board" voluntarily and to agree, so agendas by leadership can be carried out with little resistance. One must wonder what principle leaders such as these adhere to. Is it the principle of power?
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Nation-States, Values and Universiality
Today's need to look for the universal, so that our fractured state of affairs might be mended, is all important, I believe. Is there a universal? Are there unversal values?
In a scientific age, where men do not accept religion at face value, one must use the "picture" of man as an evolutionary being, and yet, hold to some aspect of "higher value", so that man is prized above the natural realm. Why would this be important?
Humans must not be equivolized to "matter alone". Otherwise, science will treat man, as just matter. There is no ethical or moral obligation to deter science from de-meaning those "outside of the power structures".
Today's climate of globalism has led many to affirm multi-culturalism without critical analysis. These have sought to understand man within context, without understanding man, himself. Is the "man" apart from culture?
Yes, man is a rational being, that acts in response to stimuli,and has certain basic needs to develop potential. But, affirming multiculturalism is a different matter.
Multiculturalism holds no values as universal, because values are contextually understood. While this may be true within the realm of religious values, it is not true within the realm of science, or universiality.
Universiality are the basics that our nation upholds; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Each citizen is granted these inalienable rights. These rights are the basis of human rights and our government's desire to see that other nations comply with these universal principles.
Today's globalism that affirms such multiculturalism and relativism as The United Nations affirms all nations as equal. Lybia is an equal to America, in fact, because of America's "discriminaton" of certain nations, America suffers persecution under the label of "Empire".
This is an absurd view, because American ideals value individual liberties and independent thinking, unlike nations that condone monarchies, theocracies, or dictatorships.
What is of ulitmate value? American ideals, which uphold human rights, but within the bounds of law.
In a scientific age, where men do not accept religion at face value, one must use the "picture" of man as an evolutionary being, and yet, hold to some aspect of "higher value", so that man is prized above the natural realm. Why would this be important?
Humans must not be equivolized to "matter alone". Otherwise, science will treat man, as just matter. There is no ethical or moral obligation to deter science from de-meaning those "outside of the power structures".
Today's climate of globalism has led many to affirm multi-culturalism without critical analysis. These have sought to understand man within context, without understanding man, himself. Is the "man" apart from culture?
Yes, man is a rational being, that acts in response to stimuli,and has certain basic needs to develop potential. But, affirming multiculturalism is a different matter.
Multiculturalism holds no values as universal, because values are contextually understood. While this may be true within the realm of religious values, it is not true within the realm of science, or universiality.
Universiality are the basics that our nation upholds; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Each citizen is granted these inalienable rights. These rights are the basis of human rights and our government's desire to see that other nations comply with these universal principles.
Today's globalism that affirms such multiculturalism and relativism as The United Nations affirms all nations as equal. Lybia is an equal to America, in fact, because of America's "discriminaton" of certain nations, America suffers persecution under the label of "Empire".
This is an absurd view, because American ideals value individual liberties and independent thinking, unlike nations that condone monarchies, theocracies, or dictatorships.
What is of ulitmate value? American ideals, which uphold human rights, but within the bounds of law.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Troubling Questions and the CIA
The CIA protects American interests in bringing information to our governmant. These government employees do their work under risk of their lives. They do their work for the sake of our countrie's continued freedoms. Some have questions about which is of higher value; American security or human rights.
The CIA has used various means to obtain certain ends and have been sucessful in many cases. But, the question of how they have gone about their interrogation has caused some consternation over abuses of human rights. But, what of those who are not forthcoming with information that would undermine our freedom and cause great harm worldwide? What is the basis of discerning "justice", when certain individuals are dangerous for justice at large?
Suspected criminals have been given their 'miranda rights". We are a nation that believes that one is innocent until proven guilty. But, how are undercover operatives to be "found out", if not with another 'undercover operative"? The disadvantage to the CIA in getting information from those who do not value human life is troubling. Terrorists can go free, because the CIA is bound by "human rights". How is the CIA going to do their job? Will it require them to get more 'evidence' of criminal behavior? And how are they going to do this with the terrorists?
The Modern Age was an age of Reason. We based our determinations of "law and justice" on the Constitution, which was to protect our citizens. Today's post-modern and the multi-cultural "melieu" has muddied the waters and bred many questions regarding nation-states and their very existence.
Now, after determining that there was nothing further to "investigate", and that we would let "bygones be bygones", we are re-considering investigating these charges. I thought that once a determination was made "under law" then one could not be tried again. Can a person be re-tried for a trial already determined?
The Democrats are crying that we are a nation "defined by laws". I quake to think what lawyers will do to justice, if they want to...Lawyers have ways to manevuer around "common sense".
What will happen to those who would want to commit their lives to the CIA? Will they desire to commit to the government with no guarantee of governement protection? What will happen to those that are presently in the CIA? Will they look elsewhere for jobs and will those that stay be so cautious that they will become insignificant to our national security? Will the protection of American citizens and the values of liberty be dismissed because of the value of life over liberty?
These are the questions that face the 'think tanks", politicians, and the American people.
The CIA has used various means to obtain certain ends and have been sucessful in many cases. But, the question of how they have gone about their interrogation has caused some consternation over abuses of human rights. But, what of those who are not forthcoming with information that would undermine our freedom and cause great harm worldwide? What is the basis of discerning "justice", when certain individuals are dangerous for justice at large?
Suspected criminals have been given their 'miranda rights". We are a nation that believes that one is innocent until proven guilty. But, how are undercover operatives to be "found out", if not with another 'undercover operative"? The disadvantage to the CIA in getting information from those who do not value human life is troubling. Terrorists can go free, because the CIA is bound by "human rights". How is the CIA going to do their job? Will it require them to get more 'evidence' of criminal behavior? And how are they going to do this with the terrorists?
The Modern Age was an age of Reason. We based our determinations of "law and justice" on the Constitution, which was to protect our citizens. Today's post-modern and the multi-cultural "melieu" has muddied the waters and bred many questions regarding nation-states and their very existence.
Now, after determining that there was nothing further to "investigate", and that we would let "bygones be bygones", we are re-considering investigating these charges. I thought that once a determination was made "under law" then one could not be tried again. Can a person be re-tried for a trial already determined?
The Democrats are crying that we are a nation "defined by laws". I quake to think what lawyers will do to justice, if they want to...Lawyers have ways to manevuer around "common sense".
What will happen to those who would want to commit their lives to the CIA? Will they desire to commit to the government with no guarantee of governement protection? What will happen to those that are presently in the CIA? Will they look elsewhere for jobs and will those that stay be so cautious that they will become insignificant to our national security? Will the protection of American citizens and the values of liberty be dismissed because of the value of life over liberty?
These are the questions that face the 'think tanks", politicians, and the American people.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Art, Form, and Expression
Art in the free world is a personal, as well as a cultural "expression". One's view of life and value is represented by these forms of expression, whether these expressions are in the printed press about politics, or whether these expressions are "artistic" ways of expressing other "forms" of "life". The West values the freedom of expression and so, we do not confine or undermine free expression. But, there are other countries that do.
Just this morning while going throught the massive piles of last week's newpapers, I read where China is now limiting Facebook and Twitter. There is much regulation is such countries because of their need to control the population's information that might undermine "elite power".
Such is also the case in Islamic countries where women are covered from head to toe. The free expression of "fashion" is not to be desired, affirmed, valued or allowed. "Allah" is a "black and white" God. Color, whether literal or metaphorical, is not appreciated in such cultures.
Even though conservative Islamic woman have no choice in their public image, I found many Islamic women going throught the history of fashion exhibition at the Victoria and Albert museum in London. I wondered why they were interested. Was art and its value a human universal, even when it is suppressed? The "universal" categories of "black and white" were more in line with "conservatism", than a particular religious tradition.
As I was looking and pondering over these thoughts, I came across two English women, who were viewing the case before them. One made a rather disintergrating and distainful remark about the "American designer sweatsuit" in the case. As she and her friend were obviously interested in "designer clothes", there was no value judgment made against expensive items. So, I wondered why the value judgment was made against this particular item of clothing.
The statement seemed to be dismissing as extravagant an expensive sweatsuit, while making allowance for much more expensive items of clothing. Was this value judgment based on a "traditional" understanding of aristocratic dressing, for an occassion? The value of aristocracy and its "image" is important to European identity, while Americans are practical and value using thier money where it is most useful, which is an individually determined definition. Sweatsuits are probably worn more than an evening gown, for instance. So, some Americans might find value in spending their money on an expensive sweatsuit, than an expensive gown.
America is known for individualism, informality, practicality, pragmatism, and liberty. I wonder if other countries look at our "success" as innovators, and our economic liberties as something that is envied and resented. America has represented many things to many people, because of our freedoms. Our freedoms are unique in this world. And I think rulers in other countries envy our "power" over the "ideals" of thier people.
I think being equal under law in a representative government is the best "ideal" there is in this world. Americans should value, defend and maintain this "form" rather than bickering about other "forms" of expression and being in this world.
Just this morning while going throught the massive piles of last week's newpapers, I read where China is now limiting Facebook and Twitter. There is much regulation is such countries because of their need to control the population's information that might undermine "elite power".
Such is also the case in Islamic countries where women are covered from head to toe. The free expression of "fashion" is not to be desired, affirmed, valued or allowed. "Allah" is a "black and white" God. Color, whether literal or metaphorical, is not appreciated in such cultures.
Even though conservative Islamic woman have no choice in their public image, I found many Islamic women going throught the history of fashion exhibition at the Victoria and Albert museum in London. I wondered why they were interested. Was art and its value a human universal, even when it is suppressed? The "universal" categories of "black and white" were more in line with "conservatism", than a particular religious tradition.
As I was looking and pondering over these thoughts, I came across two English women, who were viewing the case before them. One made a rather disintergrating and distainful remark about the "American designer sweatsuit" in the case. As she and her friend were obviously interested in "designer clothes", there was no value judgment made against expensive items. So, I wondered why the value judgment was made against this particular item of clothing.
The statement seemed to be dismissing as extravagant an expensive sweatsuit, while making allowance for much more expensive items of clothing. Was this value judgment based on a "traditional" understanding of aristocratic dressing, for an occassion? The value of aristocracy and its "image" is important to European identity, while Americans are practical and value using thier money where it is most useful, which is an individually determined definition. Sweatsuits are probably worn more than an evening gown, for instance. So, some Americans might find value in spending their money on an expensive sweatsuit, than an expensive gown.
America is known for individualism, informality, practicality, pragmatism, and liberty. I wonder if other countries look at our "success" as innovators, and our economic liberties as something that is envied and resented. America has represented many things to many people, because of our freedoms. Our freedoms are unique in this world. And I think rulers in other countries envy our "power" over the "ideals" of thier people.
I think being equal under law in a representative government is the best "ideal" there is in this world. Americans should value, defend and maintain this "form" rather than bickering about other "forms" of expression and being in this world.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Politics, Ideology, and the Nation State
I have real concerns about some of Obama's actions recently. I have mentioned how he has treated our allies, but how he has treated our enemies baffles me. Perhaps, he is trying to befriend these enemies, so that the multi-cultural postmodern mind-set will win the policy debate. He has said that we should use diplomacy and not military might.
But, I think this has real implications about how one understands the world and its future. I don't doubt that we must engage across boundaries, nationally, as these have already dissolved because of economic necessity. Maybe this was misguided, as now we must "do" policy around economics, insteads of economics around policy. (This was America's "sin" and the cause of much of our heartache financially today.)
We are one world economically, but we are vastly different polictically and culturally. This is what is dividing people. If we give credibility to those who deny the Holocost, then we are denying reality, for multicultural "opinion". And we are doing a disservice to the nation-state and the ideals that our country stands as it concerns individual rights.
Obama has sent a video to Iran, wined and dined with Venezula's dictator, Chavez, and opened up Cuba. Perhaps, if earning "respect" by giving "respect" is the way to "enter the country" and bring about change toward democratic governance, then his vision would be rightly discerned. But, isn't he taking a chance in "trusting" the dictators, their media propaganda machine, and actually discriminating against our long-time allies? I think he is acting naively. Just recently a journalist was taken and tried in Iran and is to serve time in their prison, as she spied. This is reality, not a naive "hope" for peace.
The U.N. is being banned by some groups because human rights is about the ideal of the individual, not cultural rights, or ideals, unless, it is about our nation's ideals of "life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness". If tradition is not honored by Obama at home, like when he covered the crosses at Georgtown University, and yet, he wants to honor the discriminated "tradition" of Islam, or the persecuted "class" of Hamas, while dismissing our allies, as allies (militarily defined) then we are headed for some turbulant times.
Postmodernism is multiculturalism, perspectivism, relativism, etc. It is context oriented. But, context cannot determine policy when it comes to a nation, and this is what disturbs me, as Obama wants to change the very foundations of our government, giving all equal opportunity, while not discerning of or discriminating about accountability.
Although our nation has "done damage" abroad, we have also done much that is good. Why should we apologize over who we are, as Obama is continually doing when travelling abroad. I recognize that we have been seeking the financial benefit of our nation's interest, but all nations seek to do this. Why are we apologizing for our existence? Of course, there will be many that are jealous over our freedom, and "prosperity", that is human nature. But, alleviating envy by dissolving all of our assets does nothing to address the problem of envy in the hearts of other countries.
We have sought to bring freedom to individuals and nations. And while the means of bringing freedom have not been perfect, nothing in this world is perfect, and life is more valued as free than as enslaved by any system or form of government. So, we should continue to be proud of our nation and our military. And we should definately not be apologizing, especially to those who do not value life and freedom!
But, I think this has real implications about how one understands the world and its future. I don't doubt that we must engage across boundaries, nationally, as these have already dissolved because of economic necessity. Maybe this was misguided, as now we must "do" policy around economics, insteads of economics around policy. (This was America's "sin" and the cause of much of our heartache financially today.)
We are one world economically, but we are vastly different polictically and culturally. This is what is dividing people. If we give credibility to those who deny the Holocost, then we are denying reality, for multicultural "opinion". And we are doing a disservice to the nation-state and the ideals that our country stands as it concerns individual rights.
Obama has sent a video to Iran, wined and dined with Venezula's dictator, Chavez, and opened up Cuba. Perhaps, if earning "respect" by giving "respect" is the way to "enter the country" and bring about change toward democratic governance, then his vision would be rightly discerned. But, isn't he taking a chance in "trusting" the dictators, their media propaganda machine, and actually discriminating against our long-time allies? I think he is acting naively. Just recently a journalist was taken and tried in Iran and is to serve time in their prison, as she spied. This is reality, not a naive "hope" for peace.
The U.N. is being banned by some groups because human rights is about the ideal of the individual, not cultural rights, or ideals, unless, it is about our nation's ideals of "life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness". If tradition is not honored by Obama at home, like when he covered the crosses at Georgtown University, and yet, he wants to honor the discriminated "tradition" of Islam, or the persecuted "class" of Hamas, while dismissing our allies, as allies (militarily defined) then we are headed for some turbulant times.
Postmodernism is multiculturalism, perspectivism, relativism, etc. It is context oriented. But, context cannot determine policy when it comes to a nation, and this is what disturbs me, as Obama wants to change the very foundations of our government, giving all equal opportunity, while not discerning of or discriminating about accountability.
Although our nation has "done damage" abroad, we have also done much that is good. Why should we apologize over who we are, as Obama is continually doing when travelling abroad. I recognize that we have been seeking the financial benefit of our nation's interest, but all nations seek to do this. Why are we apologizing for our existence? Of course, there will be many that are jealous over our freedom, and "prosperity", that is human nature. But, alleviating envy by dissolving all of our assets does nothing to address the problem of envy in the hearts of other countries.
We have sought to bring freedom to individuals and nations. And while the means of bringing freedom have not been perfect, nothing in this world is perfect, and life is more valued as free than as enslaved by any system or form of government. So, we should continue to be proud of our nation and our military. And we should definately not be apologizing, especially to those who do not value life and freedom!
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Religious Identity Re-identified
"There is no Jew or Greek" is something that American society affirms, as we are a "melting pot" of many nations. We are what a "moral vision" consists, where a "new humanity" has become a nation-state. Religious identity is tied up with certain "stories" and texts, which hinder a full embrace and hospitable temper toward difference, diversity and freedom.
"There is no Jew or Gentile" meaning that there is no favoritism that all are equal before the Law. Neopotism is forbidden in business dealings. We are a people, a free and representative Republic that holds that "all mean are created equal" with "certain inalienable rights". We hold to a higher view of man than religious traditions do. We are humanists because we hold that all individuals deserve an equal respect and dignity that is protected by government. No slavery allowed, nor special priviledge or "special insightful revelation". No, we are all created equal.
Religions do not believe that all are equal, as there are priests, witch doctors, Popes, teachers, and prophets. Although there are different functions or roles in organizations or job duties, we, the people understand our interedependece, whether through the demands of unions, or minority rights. America seeks to protect those who are less fortunate, while gifting those with special gifts with the freedom to do, and become all that they can become.
America believes that all men and women are deserving of freedom and justice. We do not discriminate on any basis. It is the law. We must give equal opportunity, as that is the law. And we are respecters of law, and not men (or women)!
"There is no Jew or Gentile" meaning that there is no favoritism that all are equal before the Law. Neopotism is forbidden in business dealings. We are a people, a free and representative Republic that holds that "all mean are created equal" with "certain inalienable rights". We hold to a higher view of man than religious traditions do. We are humanists because we hold that all individuals deserve an equal respect and dignity that is protected by government. No slavery allowed, nor special priviledge or "special insightful revelation". No, we are all created equal.
Religions do not believe that all are equal, as there are priests, witch doctors, Popes, teachers, and prophets. Although there are different functions or roles in organizations or job duties, we, the people understand our interedependece, whether through the demands of unions, or minority rights. America seeks to protect those who are less fortunate, while gifting those with special gifts with the freedom to do, and become all that they can become.
America believes that all men and women are deserving of freedom and justice. We do not discriminate on any basis. It is the law. We must give equal opportunity, as that is the law. And we are respecters of law, and not men (or women)!
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Globalization the Market and the Economy
Yesterday, I heard on NPR that our country's financial crisis was viewed as the collapse of a pyramid type monetary scheme. This affects the global market and globalization itself...
The question posed and the answer to the crisis was to funnel money back into the economy. Thus, the stimulus package...but also, it was stated that the money had to be given to the poor, as that was the only way to ensure that the money would be funnelled back into the economy through spending...
I have two problems with this situation. One, while it may help the economy, does it help the poor really? Doesn't it breed dependence and teach irresponsiblity, by the dependence on government hand-outs and then spending, not saving or investing? What character does it breed? And what does it do for those of us who foot the bill throught taxes?
The other problem I have with this type of solution, is two fold. One, that our economic recovery will be dependent on cheap goods that are made by "slave labor" in other countries. Not only does this produce a country dependent on cheap goods made elsewhere, but it limits investments in our own country's econonmic future. Much of our economy is already owned by other rogue nattions, anyway. (will we see the collapse of our nation to these rogue nations because of our innate greed and materialism/)
Another program last night followed a graph that showed the history of the value of our money. After the Depression ("29), our money which was based on gold, was a steady horozonial line, and gradually (only slightly) increased at 1965 (gold standard devalued) and then sharply rose, as in a vertical straight line, after the Wall Street collapse...Our money it was proposed is decreasing in value at hisorically unprecedented rate. Even those of us who have been frugal, and saved, will be poor if money is devalued at this rate. I guess it's better not to be frugal based on this kind of economic evaluation. America has always been based on a free market economy, and now, the free market is no more.
There was other news last night that Mexico and our borders are seeing more problems with gang infilteration , drug smuggling, etc. What will be the future for our children and grandchildren?
Some of us are helpless to really make changes nationally, as the average citizen is at the mercy of the elite elected officials, who have their own interests to consider...which makes me wonder how much of the stimulus package is to protect those interests or to provide pay-offs before the inevitable collapst of our economy for good...
The question posed and the answer to the crisis was to funnel money back into the economy. Thus, the stimulus package...but also, it was stated that the money had to be given to the poor, as that was the only way to ensure that the money would be funnelled back into the economy through spending...
I have two problems with this situation. One, while it may help the economy, does it help the poor really? Doesn't it breed dependence and teach irresponsiblity, by the dependence on government hand-outs and then spending, not saving or investing? What character does it breed? And what does it do for those of us who foot the bill throught taxes?
The other problem I have with this type of solution, is two fold. One, that our economic recovery will be dependent on cheap goods that are made by "slave labor" in other countries. Not only does this produce a country dependent on cheap goods made elsewhere, but it limits investments in our own country's econonmic future. Much of our economy is already owned by other rogue nattions, anyway. (will we see the collapse of our nation to these rogue nations because of our innate greed and materialism/)
Another program last night followed a graph that showed the history of the value of our money. After the Depression ("29), our money which was based on gold, was a steady horozonial line, and gradually (only slightly) increased at 1965 (gold standard devalued) and then sharply rose, as in a vertical straight line, after the Wall Street collapse...Our money it was proposed is decreasing in value at hisorically unprecedented rate. Even those of us who have been frugal, and saved, will be poor if money is devalued at this rate. I guess it's better not to be frugal based on this kind of economic evaluation. America has always been based on a free market economy, and now, the free market is no more.
There was other news last night that Mexico and our borders are seeing more problems with gang infilteration , drug smuggling, etc. What will be the future for our children and grandchildren?
Some of us are helpless to really make changes nationally, as the average citizen is at the mercy of the elite elected officials, who have their own interests to consider...which makes me wonder how much of the stimulus package is to protect those interests or to provide pay-offs before the inevitable collapst of our economy for good...
Saturday, September 13, 2008
What Is the Scriptures Usefulness?
The Scriptures are used by evangelicals as a way to understand God and his ways. The requirements of God are written in black and white and some, believe, are not debatable. But, are Scriptures a supernatural text that is absolute? Yes and No.
The Scripture cover over many years and are individual texts, written in different languages to many different contexts. There is no way of bringing a coherent whole to the text. Biblical scholars have sought to understand the different contexts of the individual writings and the individual authors of those writings. The social and political contexts are easier to ascertain than the author's intention, at times. What was the real 'mind-set" of Paul, for instance when he seems to speak out of both sides of his mouth about some issues? What was his "worldview? Is there a Christian "worldview"? I would say, no. There are Christian worldviewS, but not one worldview. Not only are there differences due to denominational emphasis, but there are also differences because of how one understands the text itself.
We can understand the text as inspired, just as any text that previenently shows forth God's glory through natural revelation. This means that the text is not inspired apart from the people who wrote the text. Inspiration is grounded in the natural. The text is a "form of art" and represents truths that are universal, if understood within context and with a keen eye toward principles of "wisdom". In the sense that people are inspired by God's gifting, the Scriptures are inspired. But, the Scriptures are not some superspiritualized text that is "above" humanity. The Scriptures are not God, they only reveal things about God and man.
Scriptures cannot be absolutized as law. The giving of the law was within a particular culture and paradigm. And the law was interpreted as what gave distinction to the people of God before they had a homeland (a nation-state). The Law defined an undefined people. It was their identity. Today's nation state maintains an ordered structure through law that brings a more defined identity to the individual through culture. Identity is not anti-thetical to being Christian, because being Christian, is about being human.
But, is this view of Scripture appropriate? Do we render the text as a rule-book, where everyone adheres to the "standards" that are written without recourse or re-dress from the distinctiveness of the contexts of the text, the people of the text and people of today?
These questions will be answered differently within Christian commitment. We must allow that diversity, otherwise, we limit God's revelation to our limited minds, understanding, context, knowledge of the world in the present, etc. Surely, then we would understand that the text has been understood differently. And surely we understand that the text is the text of only one tradition. It is not the whole of revelation. It is only a part.
The Scripture cover over many years and are individual texts, written in different languages to many different contexts. There is no way of bringing a coherent whole to the text. Biblical scholars have sought to understand the different contexts of the individual writings and the individual authors of those writings. The social and political contexts are easier to ascertain than the author's intention, at times. What was the real 'mind-set" of Paul, for instance when he seems to speak out of both sides of his mouth about some issues? What was his "worldview? Is there a Christian "worldview"? I would say, no. There are Christian worldviewS, but not one worldview. Not only are there differences due to denominational emphasis, but there are also differences because of how one understands the text itself.
We can understand the text as inspired, just as any text that previenently shows forth God's glory through natural revelation. This means that the text is not inspired apart from the people who wrote the text. Inspiration is grounded in the natural. The text is a "form of art" and represents truths that are universal, if understood within context and with a keen eye toward principles of "wisdom". In the sense that people are inspired by God's gifting, the Scriptures are inspired. But, the Scriptures are not some superspiritualized text that is "above" humanity. The Scriptures are not God, they only reveal things about God and man.
Scriptures cannot be absolutized as law. The giving of the law was within a particular culture and paradigm. And the law was interpreted as what gave distinction to the people of God before they had a homeland (a nation-state). The Law defined an undefined people. It was their identity. Today's nation state maintains an ordered structure through law that brings a more defined identity to the individual through culture. Identity is not anti-thetical to being Christian, because being Christian, is about being human.
But, is this view of Scripture appropriate? Do we render the text as a rule-book, where everyone adheres to the "standards" that are written without recourse or re-dress from the distinctiveness of the contexts of the text, the people of the text and people of today?
These questions will be answered differently within Christian commitment. We must allow that diversity, otherwise, we limit God's revelation to our limited minds, understanding, context, knowledge of the world in the present, etc. Surely, then we would understand that the text has been understood differently. And surely we understand that the text is the text of only one tradition. It is not the whole of revelation. It is only a part.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
National Identity, the Palestinians, and Religion
I have recently been thinking about Islam, as it is 9/11. A professor from Bethlehem Bible College in "Palestine" came to our university twice and talked about the injustices of Israel against the Palestinians.
What was this injustice? Most of us have read and heard about the occupied territories and the constant warring between these two "brothers". This professor from Bethlehem Bible College said that the understanding of the territories is different, of course, than what we now know as Israel. Are these people without an identity because they have no "nation-state"? What does justice look like when it comes to these kinds of disputes? Is Muslim identity soley a religious one and that is the problem concerning terrorism? Are they seeking an identity only in Shairia Law, that they try to export into Western nations? And what about Western nations that have difficulties in knowing how to integrate a "people" whose identity is so tightly bound to their religion?
These questions, I'm sure, have been studied by the State Department and our diplomats. What do you think the solution is? A dissolution of national identity? Whose law will rule, then? Is a Democracy congruent with Islamic Law? Is a one world government possible? How are the nations to resolve these issues when the U.N. and international law has not? What do you think?
What was this injustice? Most of us have read and heard about the occupied territories and the constant warring between these two "brothers". This professor from Bethlehem Bible College said that the understanding of the territories is different, of course, than what we now know as Israel. Are these people without an identity because they have no "nation-state"? What does justice look like when it comes to these kinds of disputes? Is Muslim identity soley a religious one and that is the problem concerning terrorism? Are they seeking an identity only in Shairia Law, that they try to export into Western nations? And what about Western nations that have difficulties in knowing how to integrate a "people" whose identity is so tightly bound to their religion?
These questions, I'm sure, have been studied by the State Department and our diplomats. What do you think the solution is? A dissolution of national identity? Whose law will rule, then? Is a Democracy congruent with Islamic Law? Is a one world government possible? How are the nations to resolve these issues when the U.N. and international law has not? What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
