Today's world leave one with a quandary about what to do and how to thnk in "global ways". Doesn't globalism dissolve identficaton and personal boundaries? These are questions about Sovereignty.
Sovereignty is about boundaries, and the "rule of law". Laws describe crime and courts convict those that haven't respected the boundaries that protect the social order. Countries respect another country's right to differ, as we allow diplomatic immunity to those that might trangress one nation's laws, that aren't especially important in another country.
I think about Hirshi Ayan Ali, who has escaped Somalia and an arranged marriage, to find herself in the Netherlands getting an education and a sear on Parliament. When it was finally found ou that her citizenship was based on deception, then the Dutch had to investigate the right of her citizenship. In the end, she was allowed citizenship on the basis that her deception was not considered deception in Somalia! Hirshi's understanding when she filled out the form for citizenship was interpreted by her reference point, Somalian tradition.
It has just been pointed out that when an artificial identity is imposed, without the person coming to terms with their identity themselves, that there is resistance. Such a case could be made with the European Union and how difficult it was in the first place to bring about a unity, to see countries revert back to their identifying natonalities!!!
One wonders what this might mean in global affairs that have to do with business interests, national security and individual rights. Corporations now have rights to personhood, which might mean that individuals aren't considered any more a person, than a corporation....national security is of interest if one believes that nation states should and do have various interests to protect....but that isn't the frame in today's post-modern culture, where anything and everything s up for grabs.
I believe that there must be a prioritizingof values, before one can make a choice about what to do in a particular situation. Human rights is a universal, but is the United Nations to supercede the nation-state and its right to self-defense? Self-defense is a natural right! And must be protected...if we want to maintain civilization itself! Otherwise, groups of all kinds make for a cloudy future for defense of liberty, as equality will be imposed, not sought as a natural right by individuals!!!
Showing posts with label natural rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label natural rights. Show all posts
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Thursday, February 10, 2011
My Friend's Post on Abortion
I am certainly thinking through the implications of one's political commitments. These are important because they reveal one's values and are important in determining and making decisions about one's life, and the life of the society one wants for oneself and one's family.
On "Using My Liberty", my friend, Mary Diane Goin, challenges those that would lightly abort an "inconvenience". Her argument has been supported by philosophical and biological information that would be applauded by anyone with any sense. She argues that she is a libertarian Christian, meaning that she keeps poitical views about liberty separate from her religious views, when they would impinge upon another human's choice of value concerning their life.
I used to be "Pro-Life", but just recently I am seeking to understand on what basis are rights based, if there is only "nature without God"? Of course, Diane's argument is based on Catholic natural rights/natural law theory. But, if there is no God, how does one argue the right of the unborn? or of anyone? Diane points this out, in her distinction between natural and legal rights. Practically speaking, if there are no legal rights, then there is no real political liberty. And without political liberty, then life isn't really "life", is it, for the born or the unborn!
First, there is the question of how the "Pro Life" movement as a whole has treated those that have had abortions or those going to get abortions at the abortion clinic. It is as if, these girls/women are disregarded and disrespected because in the eyes of the 'Pro Life" movement they don't deserve to exist, because they have broken God's Law against murder. And to top that off, they are murdering an innocent child, a gift of Gd. Some have gone so far to murder the woman or the doctor who was responsible. Others think that "shunning" or shaming will bring about repentance! It reminds me of Jesus' admonition that "he that is without sin, cast the first stone" (altho that story was not in the original sources). People judge others based on what they have been taught is right, and then, like herd animals throw stones at those that "for the grace of God" they'd be"....they do not love mercy, exept for the unborn. .
But, let's back up. First one has to believe that God exists, that he grants natural rights, and that sexual intercourse that results in conception is his Divine intervention, or at least, his means of reproducing the human race. Humans are viewed by such as these as more than animals. Humans are a unique creations of God. He Directly or indirectly CAUSES the conception. This view believes that God intervenes in the affairs of men. One believes that God interevene directly, while the other believes that he intervenes indirectly. So, abortion is first and foremost a "sin" against God and His interevening Providence!
Such believers believe they have a justified right to impose their view on others because they think that God has commanded that "Thou Shalt Not Kill", the abortionists are in danger of God's judgment, either supernaturally or naturally. The Supernaturalist would believe that one will be judged at the "end of time", while the naturalist would believe that God's judgment is in self-condemnation. (There could be a mixture of each as the naturalist could also believe that one would also have to give an account "at the day of reckoning").There is an urgency about getting these women to repent, so they won't face judgment. They see their "moral concern" as "God's concern". They are "God" ambassador's or representatives for the unborn and their rights".
Besides the belief that natural causes are the direct or indirect intervention of God, there is the belief that all natural results of intercourse should be accepted. This is taking responsibility for one's choice and action. Some of these believe that all contraception is inhibiting the natural course of God's causal intervention,....that is, using the means of sexual intercourse as an end to produce a child. Sexual interourse is viewed first and foremost as precreation, because of the Genesis mandate to "be fruitful and multiply"
Since these are adamantly opposed to contraception because it interferes with nature, and nature is viewed as God's footstool, these believe that chasity is to be promoted for teens. This is the only option, because God doesn't sanction sex outside of marriage. While I agree, I wonder what to do about those teens that aren't going to have the opportunity for a "nice Christian upbringing, or Church influence, or even consider the option of chasity, as this has not been their example or reality. Or possibly there are some that seek so much to be accepted that the compromise their principles to "fit in" or to "be loved". Teenagers are known to be impulsive and idealistic (I won't get pregnant!)
What about those that spread sexually transmitted diseases, or AIDS because condoms are not advised? Is responsibility about society's overall health and how is that gauged? Because divorce rates are impacting society at such great levels, should we legislate against divorce? (Christians are divorced just as often as non-Christians). Christians are still having abortions in great numbers ( my friend had the stats on one of her posts) I think the greatest inhibitor against pre-marital sex is self-respect, not "God's prohibition" and teaching teens about their dignity as persons.
If taking responsibility for one's choices is of value to the "Pro Life" movement, what if one has more children than one can provide for, then what? One believes that "God will provide"! Shouldn't there be a rational budget consideration when planning for children, or is planning children not allowed because that would be usurping "God's place"? Certainly, most Christians believe that contraception is not forbidden within the marital relationship. But, there might be disagreement about what kind of contraception would be warranted. Doesn't it become a matter of conscience (even before God)?
The arguments from biology are strong, but one only argues from biology if one believe that the universe and all that is is "under God" and is 'his design" and the place where he manifest "his will".
Sex is a natural human desire. I think that there are worse and better ways for humans to view sex within society and to benefit the whole of society. Marriage is to be the norm for relational safety and sexual expression for the sake of society's physical health and the sake of society's children. But, these values have nothing to do with "God, neccsarily. Most people would have these values, for it is a matter of maintaining stability for society. And stability is what makes for a healthy environment.
In conclusion, if one is a Christian, and believes in the orthodox view of God, as interventional then of course, there would be an affirmation of the "Pro Life" Movement.
On "Using My Liberty", my friend, Mary Diane Goin, challenges those that would lightly abort an "inconvenience". Her argument has been supported by philosophical and biological information that would be applauded by anyone with any sense. She argues that she is a libertarian Christian, meaning that she keeps poitical views about liberty separate from her religious views, when they would impinge upon another human's choice of value concerning their life.
I used to be "Pro-Life", but just recently I am seeking to understand on what basis are rights based, if there is only "nature without God"? Of course, Diane's argument is based on Catholic natural rights/natural law theory. But, if there is no God, how does one argue the right of the unborn? or of anyone? Diane points this out, in her distinction between natural and legal rights. Practically speaking, if there are no legal rights, then there is no real political liberty. And without political liberty, then life isn't really "life", is it, for the born or the unborn!
First, there is the question of how the "Pro Life" movement as a whole has treated those that have had abortions or those going to get abortions at the abortion clinic. It is as if, these girls/women are disregarded and disrespected because in the eyes of the 'Pro Life" movement they don't deserve to exist, because they have broken God's Law against murder. And to top that off, they are murdering an innocent child, a gift of Gd. Some have gone so far to murder the woman or the doctor who was responsible. Others think that "shunning" or shaming will bring about repentance! It reminds me of Jesus' admonition that "he that is without sin, cast the first stone" (altho that story was not in the original sources). People judge others based on what they have been taught is right, and then, like herd animals throw stones at those that "for the grace of God" they'd be"....they do not love mercy, exept for the unborn. .
But, let's back up. First one has to believe that God exists, that he grants natural rights, and that sexual intercourse that results in conception is his Divine intervention, or at least, his means of reproducing the human race. Humans are viewed by such as these as more than animals. Humans are a unique creations of God. He Directly or indirectly CAUSES the conception. This view believes that God intervenes in the affairs of men. One believes that God interevene directly, while the other believes that he intervenes indirectly. So, abortion is first and foremost a "sin" against God and His interevening Providence!
Such believers believe they have a justified right to impose their view on others because they think that God has commanded that "Thou Shalt Not Kill", the abortionists are in danger of God's judgment, either supernaturally or naturally. The Supernaturalist would believe that one will be judged at the "end of time", while the naturalist would believe that God's judgment is in self-condemnation. (There could be a mixture of each as the naturalist could also believe that one would also have to give an account "at the day of reckoning").There is an urgency about getting these women to repent, so they won't face judgment. They see their "moral concern" as "God's concern". They are "God" ambassador's or representatives for the unborn and their rights".
Besides the belief that natural causes are the direct or indirect intervention of God, there is the belief that all natural results of intercourse should be accepted. This is taking responsibility for one's choice and action. Some of these believe that all contraception is inhibiting the natural course of God's causal intervention,....that is, using the means of sexual intercourse as an end to produce a child. Sexual interourse is viewed first and foremost as precreation, because of the Genesis mandate to "be fruitful and multiply"
Since these are adamantly opposed to contraception because it interferes with nature, and nature is viewed as God's footstool, these believe that chasity is to be promoted for teens. This is the only option, because God doesn't sanction sex outside of marriage. While I agree, I wonder what to do about those teens that aren't going to have the opportunity for a "nice Christian upbringing, or Church influence, or even consider the option of chasity, as this has not been their example or reality. Or possibly there are some that seek so much to be accepted that the compromise their principles to "fit in" or to "be loved". Teenagers are known to be impulsive and idealistic (I won't get pregnant!)
What about those that spread sexually transmitted diseases, or AIDS because condoms are not advised? Is responsibility about society's overall health and how is that gauged? Because divorce rates are impacting society at such great levels, should we legislate against divorce? (Christians are divorced just as often as non-Christians). Christians are still having abortions in great numbers ( my friend had the stats on one of her posts) I think the greatest inhibitor against pre-marital sex is self-respect, not "God's prohibition" and teaching teens about their dignity as persons.
If taking responsibility for one's choices is of value to the "Pro Life" movement, what if one has more children than one can provide for, then what? One believes that "God will provide"! Shouldn't there be a rational budget consideration when planning for children, or is planning children not allowed because that would be usurping "God's place"? Certainly, most Christians believe that contraception is not forbidden within the marital relationship. But, there might be disagreement about what kind of contraception would be warranted. Doesn't it become a matter of conscience (even before God)?
The arguments from biology are strong, but one only argues from biology if one believe that the universe and all that is is "under God" and is 'his design" and the place where he manifest "his will".
Sex is a natural human desire. I think that there are worse and better ways for humans to view sex within society and to benefit the whole of society. Marriage is to be the norm for relational safety and sexual expression for the sake of society's physical health and the sake of society's children. But, these values have nothing to do with "God, neccsarily. Most people would have these values, for it is a matter of maintaining stability for society. And stability is what makes for a healthy environment.
In conclusion, if one is a Christian, and believes in the orthodox view of God, as interventional then of course, there would be an affirmation of the "Pro Life" Movement.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Addendum to Morality and America
The Christian tradition has sought to answer the question of its veracity. Certainly, everyone would agree that the Christian tradition has had an impact on the world.
The conflict over myth and history has been a battle in the scholarly world. Was Jesus a historical person, or was he a mythological story. Or was his life a real life mythologized by the Church Fathers?
Myth has been known to be useful to represent things that are beyond the discipline of scienctific exploration. And ancient myths have been useful for eons for religions to build their stories, that help to identify a people and form communities of faith.
The same has happened in America's Founding, I think. Our Founding Fathers used myth to help bring unity, identification to a "people", a diverse people. And the unity was based upon natural law, where all were created equal with certain inalienable rights. So, our unity was in our diversity, not our uniformity. Even the Founding Fathers were different in their religious convictions and commitments. And so should Americans be.
If one accepts the former hypothesis, then, the question becomes, is there a God or not? Does it matter?
The conflict over myth and history has been a battle in the scholarly world. Was Jesus a historical person, or was he a mythological story. Or was his life a real life mythologized by the Church Fathers?
Myth has been known to be useful to represent things that are beyond the discipline of scienctific exploration. And ancient myths have been useful for eons for religions to build their stories, that help to identify a people and form communities of faith.
The same has happened in America's Founding, I think. Our Founding Fathers used myth to help bring unity, identification to a "people", a diverse people. And the unity was based upon natural law, where all were created equal with certain inalienable rights. So, our unity was in our diversity, not our uniformity. Even the Founding Fathers were different in their religious convictions and commitments. And so should Americans be.
If one accepts the former hypothesis, then, the question becomes, is there a God or not? Does it matter?
Monday, November 23, 2009
The Discrimination of Cinderella
A few months ago, I wrote about Cinderella. Cinderella's story is a classic story of discrimination.
Cinderella not only had natural right but a civil right to be a part of her step-family, but was excluded and given the common duties of a maid.
When the time came for the King's ball, she felt sure that this time would include her as an equal. And her expectation and hope and work to ready herself was met with disapproval by her step-sisters and step-mother. Her legal family had not given her legal rights!
Fortunately, for Americans, we are granted rights under law, that protect us from discrimination. Those that seek to upsurp another's right to be an equal are doomed to be convicted of discrimination. Cinderella had no civil rights, so she had to resort to depending on a "fairy godmother". Hers was an unfortunate state of affairs.
But, as Disney's fairy tales all end with 'happily ever afters", Cinderella ends us gaining not just her legal and moral rights, but also the whole kingdom. She becomes the Prince's bride and all ends justly.
This is similar to what Christians believe. They believe that the supernatural will intervene to make things right or just. And if not in this life, then justice will be measured out in the after-life. This is not rational. And our Founders knew that without civil liberties, then one would be doomed to live their life in servitude, as they had under Britian with the "tea tax".
Civil rights were to protect natural rights because government should not 'take life" in any way, shape or form. We are a People, because of our consent to be governed in liberty under civil law.
Cinderella not only had natural right but a civil right to be a part of her step-family, but was excluded and given the common duties of a maid.
When the time came for the King's ball, she felt sure that this time would include her as an equal. And her expectation and hope and work to ready herself was met with disapproval by her step-sisters and step-mother. Her legal family had not given her legal rights!
Fortunately, for Americans, we are granted rights under law, that protect us from discrimination. Those that seek to upsurp another's right to be an equal are doomed to be convicted of discrimination. Cinderella had no civil rights, so she had to resort to depending on a "fairy godmother". Hers was an unfortunate state of affairs.
But, as Disney's fairy tales all end with 'happily ever afters", Cinderella ends us gaining not just her legal and moral rights, but also the whole kingdom. She becomes the Prince's bride and all ends justly.
This is similar to what Christians believe. They believe that the supernatural will intervene to make things right or just. And if not in this life, then justice will be measured out in the after-life. This is not rational. And our Founders knew that without civil liberties, then one would be doomed to live their life in servitude, as they had under Britian with the "tea tax".
Civil rights were to protect natural rights because government should not 'take life" in any way, shape or form. We are a People, because of our consent to be governed in liberty under civil law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
