Reform does not seek to undermine or dissolve previous institutions, or values, while revolution is a "new way" of being in the world. The "tea parties" were correlated to the civil rights movement today on a program I was listening to. Is this the case?
The Civil Rights movement was a social/political movement that valued the institutions of our society, but the leaders of the civil rights movement sought change in the cultural mores concerning African Americans. This was a movement of Reform, according to Martin Luther King, Jr. Martin Luther King, Jr. believed in passive resistance, petitioning government, public demonstrations, and public discourse. Many that have sought to follow in his footsteps have been revolutionary, not reformist in their practice. This is usually the case with any 'mover or shaker" in society. The leader becomes radicalized. This has transpired with all political, religious and cultural leaders that have had major impact on society.
Revolutionary images appeal to "ideals" that the movement won. These "ideals" become internalized in a people's consciousness and create a factor of identification. The radicalization of the civil rights movement was seen especially in the 1960's, when the Black Panthers became the "standard representation" of "Black Power". This was not Martin Luther King, Jr.'s representation. His was based on character, their movement was based on power.
History tends to not just radicalize "ideals", but also create the environment for politicizing what was useful for social change at a particular time. The politicalization of movements are dangerous because of the emotionally driven identification factors, that can end up being an environment that creates power politics.
Revolution should never be embraced by those who value our institutions. But, those that radicalize their own "ideals" and de-value the checks and balances in our form of government are bent on revolution of their own kind. This is when the "tea parties" are a reactionary response that represents "ideals", institutions, and our form of government that have become de-valued and politicized for the purpose of "change", without accountability. Government without accountability is non-representative and is what our Founders understood to be tyrannical.
Showing posts with label reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reform. Show all posts
Monday, April 19, 2010
Revolution, Reform, and Reactionary Politics
Humans are made to be engaged in their environments. They are creative innovators of their 'worlds". And this is as it should be, for humans are unique in their individualities. It is only in a free and open society that such uniqueness can be formed, cultivated and sanctioned. Humans are made for liberty, for without it, there is an oppressive authoritarianism that over-rules the 'human element'.
Reactions are normal responses to oppressive government. History has borne out the facts of the matter when government becomes a boundary unto itself. Our Founders did not want government that ruled over humans, but humans to rule government. The Founders created our form of government because of another government's abuse of power. Representation is an important aspect of accountability and responsibility in government's leadership.
Reactions that have formed the "tea party" movement have been based on affirmations of individual liberty to pursue one's own ends. And this is what has helped to further liberty in general in American culture.
But, some have "moral concern' over America's de-meaning of values that form the child, and affirm human dignity. These political concerns are what the evangelicals have understood to be about abortion, euthanasia, and family values.
While the evangelical has sought to protect indivdual liberty in regards to monetary interests and certain choices of lifestyle, the religious left have "social concern" for the poor, not only within our own nation, but in other countries, as well. This has led to the "social gospel" movement.
Both these brands of Christian concern have united politics and religious understanding to further agenda about the individual's values. (What should drive a particular individual in their life choices?) Some have suggested that both sides must unite to bring about a fuller view of what concerns "the world", which if one is religous, is of concern to "god".
On the other side of the spectrum, the naturalists believes in limited resources that must be maintained by stewarship. This leftist political agenda supports the religious and their value of stewarding the world "under God". So, "world concerns" become religious concerns, such as the environment, healthcare, poverty, etc.
"One world" is what is of concern to all of us, but for different reasons. Values can unite, but just as readily disunify.
Reform is good for any society because it helps society to re-evaluate what is good or bad at a given time, and explains the reasons for such concern.
But, reactionary politics drives the stakes down without understanding or seeking to hear other people at the table. Arrogance of this sort dissolves our democratic process. And such attitudes of reaction make for revolution.
Revolution is what happens when there is no other recourse. Revolution is necessary when government has abused power, dishonored individuals, disrespected culture and ignored the law.
Such revolutionary times, are time that try men's souls!
Reactions are normal responses to oppressive government. History has borne out the facts of the matter when government becomes a boundary unto itself. Our Founders did not want government that ruled over humans, but humans to rule government. The Founders created our form of government because of another government's abuse of power. Representation is an important aspect of accountability and responsibility in government's leadership.
Reactions that have formed the "tea party" movement have been based on affirmations of individual liberty to pursue one's own ends. And this is what has helped to further liberty in general in American culture.
But, some have "moral concern' over America's de-meaning of values that form the child, and affirm human dignity. These political concerns are what the evangelicals have understood to be about abortion, euthanasia, and family values.
While the evangelical has sought to protect indivdual liberty in regards to monetary interests and certain choices of lifestyle, the religious left have "social concern" for the poor, not only within our own nation, but in other countries, as well. This has led to the "social gospel" movement.
Both these brands of Christian concern have united politics and religious understanding to further agenda about the individual's values. (What should drive a particular individual in their life choices?) Some have suggested that both sides must unite to bring about a fuller view of what concerns "the world", which if one is religous, is of concern to "god".
On the other side of the spectrum, the naturalists believes in limited resources that must be maintained by stewarship. This leftist political agenda supports the religious and their value of stewarding the world "under God". So, "world concerns" become religious concerns, such as the environment, healthcare, poverty, etc.
"One world" is what is of concern to all of us, but for different reasons. Values can unite, but just as readily disunify.
Reform is good for any society because it helps society to re-evaluate what is good or bad at a given time, and explains the reasons for such concern.
But, reactionary politics drives the stakes down without understanding or seeking to hear other people at the table. Arrogance of this sort dissolves our democratic process. And such attitudes of reaction make for revolution.
Revolution is what happens when there is no other recourse. Revolution is necessary when government has abused power, dishonored individuals, disrespected culture and ignored the law.
Such revolutionary times, are time that try men's souls!
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Rights, the Press, and Reform or Revolution?
Government, whether national, parochial, or familial is instituted as a means of protection. Government is an ordering and structuring of society for the "common good'. Good government does not oppress, but gives a frame to live a "peaceful" life. Scriptures commend us to pray for government, so that our lives may be peaceful. But, what of reform or revolution, then?
Traditional "biblical" Christians are taught to submit, as 'this is the will of God in Christ Jesus, concerning you". This scripture is written with the assumption that "god controls" the events of life. This view is not affriming of what science knows to be true about time, the cosmos, and systems. Therefore, "biblical Christianity" does not exist, except in one's head. Personally, I find telling someone a "myth" to soothe their suffering, or soothe their conscience, is being dishonest.
But, theology has sought to bring about "hope" to give a reason in difficult situations or times. These theological "musings" are offensive, and can be horrendously oppressive.
The political realm is where "life happens". Politics drives policy, but ideas are what drive politics. The philosophical arguments about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is really where the battle should be waged.
Every human has life, but all do not have quality or liberty of life, much less the political freedom to pursue happiness. These are the practical issues that policy seeks to address on a global scale, but how? Liberty is not won except by exposing the costs of tyranny.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a political dissident for the U.S.S.R., in the March 15, 1976 article in U.S. News and World Report, said:
"Tyrants, bandits, puppets have come to power and pragmatice philosophy says: That
doesn't matter, we have to recognize them. And what is more, one should not consider
that the great principles of freedom finish at your own frontiers, that as long as you
have freedom, let the rest have pragmatism. No. Freedom is indivisible, and one has to
take a moral attitude toward it" (pg. 23).
The human heart is meant for freedom, and good government should allow freedom to the individual to pursue his own ends. Tyrannical governments have used many means to oppress; bad laws, no law, and God.
"All men are created equal with certain inalienable rights", "with liberty and justice for all", these are quotes that any American knows, and I hope, values. The principle is the value of the individual and the freedom that justice provides. No one should suffer under the hands of bad government, but most in this world, do. Americans do not live with fear of government interference in their private lives nor do we fear government paranoia, where government intrusively invades our physical space to demand an accounting.
Americans became a "people" because of the belief that none should be diminished or repressed. The cry of the Revolution was "no taxation without Representation". A Representative Republic "ideally" holds the leaders accountable to the people, not the people to the government. And the accountbility of the leader to the people they represent is the "vote".
In our free society, we are to give feedback to our representatives, as our voice is to be valued. If leaders are blind to the needs, values, suggestions of their people, then they have ceased to represent, and have become figure-heads or bandits of our treasury.
Free societies are only as free as the press. The press has great power in giving information to the people in our free society, but if the information is skewed, or suppressed, then the press is undermining our freedom, not just of the pertinent information, but our society as a whole. Again, let me quote Solzhenitsyn:
"The most important aspect of detente today is that there is not ideological detente. You
Western people simply can't grasp the power of Soviet propaganda."
Without free information, people are at the mercy of their rulers. I heard on a radio program yesterday, that some in our press are informed from the White House about news coverage. How one writes about the news can impact and influence public opinion. This adminstration obviously knows that without the press as a powerful weapon of reforming and revolutionizing our nation's values, "change" will not occur. Our society is to be an open and free one, but secret letters written by the President about national affairs, without accountability to Congress or the people, is acting without representing. The same independence of attitude was "applied" at Guantanamo Bay.
Government is a gift, but must be valued by responsible behavior. Leaders should be accountable, and the people fully informed. Otherwise, we are headed for the tyranny that Solzhenitsyn warned about. Americans must not allow that.
Traditional "biblical" Christians are taught to submit, as 'this is the will of God in Christ Jesus, concerning you". This scripture is written with the assumption that "god controls" the events of life. This view is not affriming of what science knows to be true about time, the cosmos, and systems. Therefore, "biblical Christianity" does not exist, except in one's head. Personally, I find telling someone a "myth" to soothe their suffering, or soothe their conscience, is being dishonest.
But, theology has sought to bring about "hope" to give a reason in difficult situations or times. These theological "musings" are offensive, and can be horrendously oppressive.
The political realm is where "life happens". Politics drives policy, but ideas are what drive politics. The philosophical arguments about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is really where the battle should be waged.
Every human has life, but all do not have quality or liberty of life, much less the political freedom to pursue happiness. These are the practical issues that policy seeks to address on a global scale, but how? Liberty is not won except by exposing the costs of tyranny.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a political dissident for the U.S.S.R., in the March 15, 1976 article in U.S. News and World Report, said:
"Tyrants, bandits, puppets have come to power and pragmatice philosophy says: That
doesn't matter, we have to recognize them. And what is more, one should not consider
that the great principles of freedom finish at your own frontiers, that as long as you
have freedom, let the rest have pragmatism. No. Freedom is indivisible, and one has to
take a moral attitude toward it" (pg. 23).
The human heart is meant for freedom, and good government should allow freedom to the individual to pursue his own ends. Tyrannical governments have used many means to oppress; bad laws, no law, and God.
"All men are created equal with certain inalienable rights", "with liberty and justice for all", these are quotes that any American knows, and I hope, values. The principle is the value of the individual and the freedom that justice provides. No one should suffer under the hands of bad government, but most in this world, do. Americans do not live with fear of government interference in their private lives nor do we fear government paranoia, where government intrusively invades our physical space to demand an accounting.
Americans became a "people" because of the belief that none should be diminished or repressed. The cry of the Revolution was "no taxation without Representation". A Representative Republic "ideally" holds the leaders accountable to the people, not the people to the government. And the accountbility of the leader to the people they represent is the "vote".
In our free society, we are to give feedback to our representatives, as our voice is to be valued. If leaders are blind to the needs, values, suggestions of their people, then they have ceased to represent, and have become figure-heads or bandits of our treasury.
Free societies are only as free as the press. The press has great power in giving information to the people in our free society, but if the information is skewed, or suppressed, then the press is undermining our freedom, not just of the pertinent information, but our society as a whole. Again, let me quote Solzhenitsyn:
"The most important aspect of detente today is that there is not ideological detente. You
Western people simply can't grasp the power of Soviet propaganda."
Without free information, people are at the mercy of their rulers. I heard on a radio program yesterday, that some in our press are informed from the White House about news coverage. How one writes about the news can impact and influence public opinion. This adminstration obviously knows that without the press as a powerful weapon of reforming and revolutionizing our nation's values, "change" will not occur. Our society is to be an open and free one, but secret letters written by the President about national affairs, without accountability to Congress or the people, is acting without representing. The same independence of attitude was "applied" at Guantanamo Bay.
Government is a gift, but must be valued by responsible behavior. Leaders should be accountable, and the people fully informed. Otherwise, we are headed for the tyranny that Solzhenitsyn warned about. Americans must not allow that.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Atheist, Agnostic or What?
Yesterday, I listened to Dr. Bart Ehrman, professor of religion at UNC/Chapel Hill, speak on suffering. He had been an evangelical at one time, but is now agnostic. His views were interesting and freeing.
In June, when I started this blog, I had suggested that those who base their authority mainly on reason, but have not denied tradition are agnostics. Otherwise, reason alone will lead to atheism, as it rejects religion's role in human life. I believe this describes Dr. Ehrman. The atheist's agenda is to undermine any value in religion and undo all religious conviction and commitment. Even though Dr. Ehrman does not believe that religion's purpose serves as the only moral compass for man, he does say that the "new atheists" do not seem to have understanding of religion's "good".
Just recently, I read the summarization of a book "Border Lines" (Quadralateral Thoughts' side-bar recommended books). This author's theory is Jewish montheism leaves room for the development of Christian expression, as one of many expressions of faith.
I find this is an interesting concept, as I do believe that this is how man is made. Difference and uniqueness imprint us from our DNA to our fingerprints. This fact alone should underwrite the need for diversity of understanding and functioning of one's faith. Faith should wear no labels, really.
I think that if "Border Lines' is correct in its analysis, then, it also would underwrtie scholarship's understanding of religion and the different ways of understanding in the history of traditions, philosophy of religions, and the psychology of religion. These divisions represent different approaches from experience, tradition, and reason. I find that fascinating and liberating!
So, what would be the "correct" term for one that bases their faith on reason (philosophy of religion), agnostic mysticism; one who bases their understanding on experience (psychology of religion), an existentialist humanitarian; one who bases their understanding on tradition (history of religion), a social/political/cultural reformer....I know I am indentified with agnostic mysticism, but am grappling with the implications of the others...
Each one defines their faith on faith (agnostic mysticism), hope (existential humanitarian), and love (reformer)....and all are connected to the "real world" of the here and now....and is not defined by creed (religion's d0gmatics), or religion (labels of definitions based on dogmatics). it is an undefined faith in life itself, not a system, a culture, or group identity.
In June, when I started this blog, I had suggested that those who base their authority mainly on reason, but have not denied tradition are agnostics. Otherwise, reason alone will lead to atheism, as it rejects religion's role in human life. I believe this describes Dr. Ehrman. The atheist's agenda is to undermine any value in religion and undo all religious conviction and commitment. Even though Dr. Ehrman does not believe that religion's purpose serves as the only moral compass for man, he does say that the "new atheists" do not seem to have understanding of religion's "good".
Just recently, I read the summarization of a book "Border Lines" (Quadralateral Thoughts' side-bar recommended books). This author's theory is Jewish montheism leaves room for the development of Christian expression, as one of many expressions of faith.
I find this is an interesting concept, as I do believe that this is how man is made. Difference and uniqueness imprint us from our DNA to our fingerprints. This fact alone should underwrite the need for diversity of understanding and functioning of one's faith. Faith should wear no labels, really.
I think that if "Border Lines' is correct in its analysis, then, it also would underwrtie scholarship's understanding of religion and the different ways of understanding in the history of traditions, philosophy of religions, and the psychology of religion. These divisions represent different approaches from experience, tradition, and reason. I find that fascinating and liberating!
So, what would be the "correct" term for one that bases their faith on reason (philosophy of religion), agnostic mysticism; one who bases their understanding on experience (psychology of religion), an existentialist humanitarian; one who bases their understanding on tradition (history of religion), a social/political/cultural reformer....I know I am indentified with agnostic mysticism, but am grappling with the implications of the others...
Each one defines their faith on faith (agnostic mysticism), hope (existential humanitarian), and love (reformer)....and all are connected to the "real world" of the here and now....and is not defined by creed (religion's d0gmatics), or religion (labels of definitions based on dogmatics). it is an undefined faith in life itself, not a system, a culture, or group identity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
