Supenaturalism and Religion

I had a discussion with a friend on Facebook about her faith. She believes that her faith is not religion, but a real experience of the transcendent. These experiences are supernatural, by all accounts to religionists, as they see the world and explain it in terms of religious ideology, or "God". Why would I not think that there interpretation is the best?

First and foremost, man/men all have a need to understand. Different men have different interests in how they seek to understand, nowadays, with all the differences in the disciplines. But, primitive man understood the world in a primitive way. The Sun was worshipped and different gods controlled different aspects of nature. Religion is man's attempt to explain the natural world. But, there is also the aspect where religion seeks to explain "Man". The Church sought to impact religion by explaining that man's experience was "under a curse" until man believed in some sort of "God" that would "save" or "redeem" man from his "bad experiences". This si the Church's teaching on sanctification, where man learns from his experiences, becasue "God" is "training" him. God has become personalized in history though the Church's story of the redemption of the disempowered..  This is the Church's /fundamental stance toward world history. World history is "God's story", and his revealing of "His Son", in his Bride, the Church. This is a transcendentalized type of secular humanism.

The differences to eschatology lies in the different understandings of "what is to happen" or "what is to come". Such differences have led to splits that created new denominations. Most still adhereing to a supernatural or transcendent view of life and all that is.

This Facebook friend is like many who believe that their faith makes some sort of difference in how they understand their lives. I think this is true, as men also seek to put their life into a particular context. These contexts are identfying factors, as we all need identity. The question is whether we think man is solely formed by such associations. Certainly, our associations do influence and form us, but it doesn't mean that we always accept their understanding, ways, or values, as we get to be adults, or we form a more critical eye toward evaluating life. Whenever we do start to critically evaluate life, then we come to a place where we, as an individual, make a choice about our values and commitments. These are ulitmate values that one doesn't want to compromise on/about. These define "who we are" in ourselves, not who we are because we like the group we are in. And this is when we choose where we will commt.

I don't like religious groups because they all too often define things without allowing for diversity. This is what separates denominations. And I don't value those that are certain of their claims about the transcendent realm, because it is presumptive to assume. Many who do accept the claims to a transcendent realm are those that base their understandings on a religious group (Roman Cahtolicism, Greek Orthodoxy, or some esoteric cult) and/ or on a "Holy Text", which is held as the defining of life. Such a view limits or defines man, without understanding the indivdiual and the complexities to and about life.

So, I don't think one can separate faith and relgions, though the Pietists and the existentialist might like to do so. This would breed a world where religious authorities could define and demand certain behavior for the 'greater good". Such authoritarial structuring is not about the individual's right to life and liberty, but a collective understanding of what life "Should" be about. And don't we all know what "shoulds" do to man? "Shoulds" are about obligations and duty; not liberty of conscience. Although we all have obligations and duties, none of us would want our lives under the control of another's expectations, which intrude upon one's personal life. These like to use the law as a weapon to subvert liberty, instead of using the law to grant equal liberty. But, all of us must determine where we will draw our lines around liberty, as we must, if we define at all, which we must, if we have identity at all. Should we want  an authoritarian whether  an individual or group of people, to come  into power, so all of us will be conformed to their understanding of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Conclusion of The Good Is Really The Bad

The conclusion of the Good Is Really the Bad;

My Ego (The Good) where my real life, real world, and decision making commitments of value has been "told" by my "Super-Ego" (Relgious conscience) my desires are Bad! And because of that "condemnation" I don't care for religion!

What Unites and Makes America Distinct? (or exceptional)

America was founded on liberty. This is what unifies us, not God. The problem today, is there is a global move to disintegrate American exceptionalism through unifying under God. And such moves are re-defining our Constitution, as well as our understanding of our nation-state.

America did not prescribe to a "one size fits all" religion.America was founded on Protestant "faith", not prescribed religion per se. This was our distinctiveness, religious liberty. But, today, it seems there is a move to define God, in montheism. This is going backwards, not forwards in our understanding of " the human" and  "the humane". If God exists, He cannot be proved. But, this is the point to those of piestic faith. Lifestyle is the focus of such. But, whenever piestic faith is prescribed by law, we have a regimented faith, where people are no longer free, but in bondage to the prescription.

It becomes more and more evident that Islam is not going to be tolerant of others, but want tolerance toward their religious convictions/claims. This is dangerous territory, as humans have "been down this road" before. What are we to do? We should not respond or live in fear of terrorism, or the terrorists have "won".

Life is not of value, so how do we battle such, when our society values life and its diversity? We are a humane society and believe that human life is valuable above all other forms of life, at least this was the traditional understanding. Today, religion and science have undermined our basic value of life and liberty because of their various understanding of priorities. God is at the end of religion, while utility is at the other end, of scientific commitment.

What transpires to and in our society, when the basic values that have held us together, liberty, have become challenged? Liberty is the foundation and is ordered under law. Authoritarian regimes and ways of understanding the world (mathmatical) undermine this basic value.

Patrick Henry said it well, "Give me liberty, or give me death"!

Moral Development in the History of American Government and Society

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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