Walls Fall Down or Should They?

Walls define and determine differences and distinctions. These are boundaries that help identify things of importance and value. This is what the Church has done through the ages in separating the sacred and the secular. Yesterday's post was about how faith and the political have been defined and understood, as 'the real". I have problems with all of them and these are the reasons, but then, faith is not about reasons, it is about vision and focus.

The Church has defined what one should believe, but can we believe in virgins that give birth? Can we believe that men are totally depraved, meaning there is nothing redeemable about them? Can we believe that we all came from one couple? And what about the discrepecies in regards to the text itself ? Belief become unbelievable in today's scientific paradigm.

Then there are those that believe that one's faith is interpreted by "bearing the cross". These follow in Jesus' steps as the "Christ of faith". But, how is one to identify with a person that lived long ago, without giving up one's own identity? Don't adults have a well-formed identity, as to their personal values and goals?

There are others that want to bring peace and good-will on earth by investigating where the history and the myth intersect and work to dissolve differences between those that are marginlized. These could be those in human need (economic inequality) and/or  those that are at political odds (political peace). But, how is one to believe in the free market and the Protestant work ethic if one also adheres to economic equality? And how is peace to come with so many differences that it has been impossible to rectify in the past? Are we at a place where those that have been at political odds can relate differently, or will there always be ideological differences in the world? I believe that ideology drives everything an individual/society holds as a value, and because of these irreconciable differences, then, we will be holding to naivete' to believe that peace will ever come world-wide and still uphold liberty of conscience.

So, where is the sacred and secular today? It is dead, except in segments of sectarian religious traditions. Life can be embraced as a gift of the "gods" or "God", or it can be embraced as a value itself.

Liberty, though, is not a value that is granted by nature, but must be nurtured and valued above all. Political liberty is hard won with shed blood and is not to be taken for granted. Leaders are to values those under them, so that justice will be forthcoming in equal consideration. The world is "at odds" and the walls or the defining elements cannot fall down without a disregard and disrespect for our nation's defining values of liberty itself..

Church And State, Who Wins?

Church and State has been of interest to me the past couple of years. I suppose it is because I am personally addressing some questions about what I think and why.

Is the Church a culture? then the Church has got to take a position about such things as dress, "manners", and social issues.

Is the Church a theological position? then the Church has to defend the "faith".

Is the Church a human institution made of many and various people that have differences of opinion where it concerns social and theological issues? then the Church is universal.

Personally, I think that government is more important than the Church. Why? Because, if one believes that the world has some kind of "order", as our Founders believed, then there are better or worse ways to "do" things. Government can form society, but the Founders were wise enough to know that individuals are what make the society what it is. They believed that all humans were equal, so government was to be for and by the people. Government, then, is only a reflection of the people who make up the society. And when people do not care about their society and its people, their government suffers. So, the question is not whether the Church is of value or importance, but what kind of people make up a particular society.

How is the Church show "care" about society? Should the Church be doing works of activism? Or should the Church leave activism to individual conscience? A lot will depend on the individual's particular persuasion about their religious tradition.

I think that it is wise to not further the gap between the sacred and secular. It breeds an "us/them" mentality. And it leads itself to pious and arrogant assertions, in the "name of God". And arrogant assertions only breed cultural division and a "war" mentality. Christians become "crusaders" for causes that are complex issues that should be left to competency.

I would rather not label myself as "Christian", "non-Christian", "believer" or "un-believer". Identification is held as a responsible "being", not in my political or social affliations. And the Church is only one social/political affliation.

What is "true" is true in all aspects of life, there is no 'special revelation or special people". And humans gain knowledge and wisdom by searching for it, whether they label themselves "Christian" or not.

Humans have needs which have irrelavancy to ideological or religious contexts, or commitments. Therefore, is the Church/religion even relevant in the conversation?

Without political freedom, which must be fought for, literally and metaphorically, humans suffer under oppression. And oppression is a diseased and disordered government, who prey upon it ignorant and uncaring populace. No one "wins" when the State OR Church oppresses individuals and their "free choice" in a "free society".

I Like "Positive Liberty"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A European's View of Future Danger

My husband's brother in law was telling us this morning that the birth rate for Euopeans is about 1.3, while the birth rate of Muslims is a lot higher. Why is he worried? Several reasons were given and they gave me room for thought...

He said that the Dutch culture was "dying" due to the infilteration of the Muslims, who use the tolerance of the Dutch to undermine Western values. He said that there was a priest who had been banned from a Christian school due to intolerance to Islam, and he gave other instances of Muslim use of religious tolerance to bring about a reverse discrimination. This is very disturbing when you consider how many immigrants are infilterating the culture and expanding their numbers by enlarging their families. In a couple of decades, he prophesizes that Shairia Law will have rule over Europe if nothing is done to stop it.

Westerners have been concerned for the planet's limited resources, and have limited their population growth., as a result Civilized societies have ceased to base their views on sacred sources, therefore, where Scripture has commanded man to '"be fruitful and multiply", the West has deemed it ïrrelavant as authoritative. Science has replaced religion in authoratative influence.

Science is not "pie in the sky", but proveable through observation, experimentation, and manipulation. Man has taken the reigns of power and determined his own destiny through the power of science''s knowledge. While science has empowered the West, the West also knows its dangers. Those who are religiously minded and do not heed the dangers of science, are even more dangerous. as they use the sword as the 'weapon of God'. This is why our national security is of utmost importance. We must in the West not abandon NATO. but, seek to broaden the influence of protecting science from hands that would use scientific power subversively.

Religious freedom and tolerance has been the bulwark of the West, but our strength may become our weakness, if we do not wake up to the insidiousness of religion's influence and power. Those who think they speak for God are a danger to civilization. Secular humanists are right in their call to tighten the belt against religion's rights in the West.

I really don't know which is worse, a totaltalirian secularized State, or a totaltalarian religious regime. Both subvert something that is distinctly human; choice. freedom and religious conviction.

Sectarianism, Faith, and Freedom

Sectarianism are moves away from something "mainstream". Usually, these movements have been a critique of some kind or other. The movements have been political, as well, as religious. These movements have come to identify people in ideological frames, which are meaning-making.

In Christian tradition, Protestants have understood themselves as "distinct from" Catholicism. And Catholicism was a break away from Judiasm, in the early Church's founding. Each 'sect" sought a more "pure form" of religious expression, in more 'pure definitions" that become abstract systems of philosophical discourse. This was the "project" of theological reflection.

In the political realm, theology sought to give a reason for political subversion, reformation or revolution. But, theology was always "after the fact" of political upheavel or scientific inquiry. Theology has always been about addressing and maintaining the "social order" and the "social structures" and institutions that make up civilization.

Political ideology has been based mostly on the social factors of economics, but has also been based on religious freedom, which was our country's founding heritage. How we live and are in the world has much to do with the political philosophy that holds the reins of power and their tolerance of religious conviction.

In America, we believe that freedom is of uptmost importance, as without freedom, the individual is nothing more than a slave in mind or life. So, it is imperative to address the political realm, as apart from addressing this area, there is no ability for individual flourishing, religious freedom or human rights.

The problem for today's world, is the question of religious freedom where it concern human rights or liberties. Should there be State mandated vaccinations for the young, irregardless of the families' religious convictions? Should there be a tolerance of "faith healings" when there have been deaths reported by such convictions? Should there be tolerance of 'honor killings" because of the religious conviction of "property rights' where it concerns women? What is the position of our country and it's ultimate values?

There have always been movements that have sought to "correct" or "address" a problem, as identified by some 'standard'. We live in an imperfect world, and these movements were/are to seek the "ideal". Unfortunately, the "ideal" will never be found. So, it is best to maintain one's freedom from any form of groupish mentality that would tend to seek to "perfect" the individual or society. One can only perfect what they deem needful, which cannot be defined by others. But, it can allow freedom of discourse, which is a beginning to understand and evaluate freedom's assests in assessing and committing to one's highest, or best "ideal" of society or individual. I find that America's government is the closest.

Ethics and Science in Stem Cell Research

Because of the recent commitment of our president to stem cell research, there has been much discussion about science and ethics. Our president suggested that stem cell research was not to be determined on an ideological commitment, but on the "facts of science".

While I believe that science has added to our quality of life, science should not function without a proper ideological frame, which are the ethical questions. Many on TV, radio and in the paper were talking about the struggle between science and ethics. Science does not answer any "moral question", it just "works". But, should our society condone anything that "works"? Pragmatism is the road to expediency, but not the road to wisdom.

Stem cell research holds much promise for those who suffer from many diseases, so this area of research would breed much "good". The ethical questions are based on questions that cannot be solved quickly, if at all, and only divide all of us along ideological lines. So, why attempt to answer any ethical questions when science's expediency in meeting human need is of primary importance? Isn't human suffering something that we all should be committed to? But, at what costs?

I have written before about the questions concerning genetic research, and some of the same questions apply to stem cell research. Who will determine when an embryo has become a separate life? And how will that be determined? Will each case pose the question and allow the individual woman the choice, such as we do with organ transplants? Is the embryo to be viewed as an "organ", part of a woman's body, that might give life to another? Organs must be taken from the donor while the donor is alive for the organ to be fully functioning. Our state license bureaus ask us whether we want to be an organ donor when we get our driving lincense. If we agree to be an organ donor, then we are giving our living consent for our organs to be used for a 'greater purpose" of saving another life. Is this wrong to allow the individual a choice? I don't think so.

Many religious believe that to give any person the right to choose is a "sin" against God, since God is the giver of life. But, when does God give life, at the moment of conception? at the moment of birth? at the moment of the heart-beat? at the moment of brain waves? at the moment of viability? When? These questions are not easily answered.

I think more importantly is who will determine when life "happens", as the political realm must remain "free" for choice, otherwise, we have political or religious authorities determining for the individual what is "best". Either way, we will be setting up our public forum for ideological war. Personal decision is of utmost importance, such as we allow with organ donation. This personal decision should not be made without all information, or deep reflection, as we must be convinced in our own minds. The separation of Church and State is commenable in this arena as well.

Intolerance for Intolerance

It was just reported on Fox news that a Muslim woman was be-headed for filing for divorce! The man is being charged with 2nd degree murdery. Hurrah for our govenment's "sense" of sensibility when it comes to religious conviction! We cannot tolerante religious intolerance, of any kind!

This is one freedom we are not going to tolerate, even in the name of religious freedom! We are a nation that believes that behavior is defined by law, and belief is personal and private. Therefore, we will not allow "morality" in the name of religion, to subvert ethical behavior toward those who differ!