Morality and America

I have concern over our nation's recent division over "cultural issues" of morality. Our country seems to be conflicted over our ideological identity. And identity defines how we understand ourselves, so identity is an important aspect of culture.

Morality is considered by some as behavior, judgments and sentiments. Some believe that morality is intuitive, through cultural conditioning. Others believe in a more rational view of morality. It seems that because our country is so diverse, America has come to a crisis of identity. This can be useful or damaging to our ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Awhile ago, I listened to a former KGB agent talk about the process that the USSR taught them in over-taking another country. There were four stages. The third was "crisis" and this is where America finds itself. What is to happen? Will we be overcome by an "authoritarian regime' , whether religious or secular, so that order can be restored? I hope not, otherwise, we will have no more liberty, because others will decide what was of private and personal conviction and commitment.

I hope for the Founding Fathers, and life in the future for all Americans, that the lines will not be drawn and driven on ideological religious or material grounds. We will certainly have disagreements and that is healthy, as long as we can listen to the other side, without obssession. I hope we will attempt to be honest that our nation is not a uniform, and ideologically driven nation.

Our nation has been pragmatic in its approach to bringing unity from diversity. And the Founders used religious language to formulate some of our country's documents. But, others have been based on such things as natural rights, and natural law, which was the scientific view of that day. Both religious liberty AND moral order, which was understood to be the "order of the universe" were what brought about our liberty and underwrote our understanding of justice.

We need to be honest that our nation was not founded as an evangelical nation, but a secular State, which allowed for diverse views about and toward religious traditions. It is a liberal democracy or a Constitutional Republic. Both are needed to affirm and balance the other, so that our nation can remain free, and open. We do not want to limit others liberty because of our own conviction or understanding of 'life".

A "Christian" Vision and the Pioneer's Goal

Christians have agendas that they think will "save the world". Scientific materialists also have agendas that will "save the planet". Both think that their way of understanding humanity, the world and what is "right" is the most important and valuable, otherwise, "the world will go to hell in a handbasket". These are radicals that tend to think they must convert everyone in sight to their way of thinking.

While Christians have traditionally understood their truth as supernaturally revealed, the scientists know that thier truth is based on the facts of 'realtiy". Both suggest that the transcendent or the immanant is where truth is "real", bringing us to the culture wars of today in America.

America was founded because of the disrespect of the British government in demanding a tax on those who were revolting against the Church of England. These had sought a country where they could worship God freely without 'state regulations' that they found repugnant because of the King's divorce and dissassociation from Catholicism.

Others had sought out the country for the adventure of developing a distant land and making it their own. Their was a more material goal.

The Founders had a "whale" of a problem in forming a "more perfect union" without alerting the overly scrupulous in inhibiting the way they wanted to worship God, while allowing free enterprise to become a reality in the "new world". Very different goals and purposes formed our union.

Today, Americans fight over which was "right". Which truth in history formed the Founders thoughts in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Both did.

We are a nation that is formed by man's desire to flourish in developing the land and material goods that this country provided. The Dutch made use of New York and called it "New Amsterdam". There is absolutely nothing wrong with economic prosperity, it is our country's heritage. And the free market has benefitted our society with prosperity beyond measure.

The Christian "ideal" is a "morally grounded" govenment, which they found in the Constitution that defended their right of free expression or worship. Today, though, it has gotten into areas that have not been defined by science, so much as the right to liberty. Liberty threatens the religiously conscientious, as they fear dishonoring God, or offending the Holy Spirit. These tend to want to defend "God's honor" by legislating their conscience. This was never the Founder's intent, I believe.

The First Ammendment was formed to protect religious institutions from interference of government. America did not want to form another 'state church". The provision in our Constitution of the Separation of Church and State was to formalize this conviction. But, where the early believers in America found solace in this freedom which was their ultimate value, today's church has gotten wind of the 'free enterprise' adventure to form corporations. The mixture of these values (religious freedom and the free enterprise) must still be affirmed under liberty of conscience.

Our country must defend the rights of a liberal democracy and uphold the standards of a Representative Republic, so that both the educated, uneducated, the religious and irreligious can be unified in a diverse climate, which the Founders "saw" and formed under the "rule of law".

Happy 9-11? The Challenge of Liberty and Justice.

Of course 9-11 was not "happy". And because we do not want to experience such a "happy" occassion again, we cannot forget what is symbolized.

9-11 symbolized such a radical faith that men and women are willing to die for it. This faith is a faith that is based not on reason, but revelation. It is not just a transcentdental view of life, but also, a political one. Islam is a politicized faith. And such a politicized faith as an absolutist, exclusivistic, and intolerant one, is dangerous indeed. It does not allow women and children basic human rights nor is it open to change. Those who impose laws that support such a faith are intolerant and authoritarian.

Our Founders found a nation based on freedoms. Freedoms from human authorities and based on the "rule of law". Men and women were willing to die for such liberties. Such radical commitment to the values that underwrote our Constitution are what gain human liberty and underwrite human rights movement. America's laws protect individual liberties and are not intolerant, unchanging and authoritarian.

Our nation is known for it opportunites and its innovation. We are a nation that absorbs all cultures and does not discriminate based upon personal convictions. Freedom of thought and speech guaruntees that the public's interest will be won at the ballot box. Our views have been so conditioned by such an environment, that it is hard for us to imagine such an oppressive religious regime. Our Founders protected our society from religious wars by the Establishment Clause.

Now, on the twilight of a decade of struggling against a religious view, our nation finds itself in a type of 'religious war' over legislation and how we should treat those who do not respect the 'rule of law'. This is a dangerous time in our country's history, but not because of "God's impending judgment" upon an ungodly nation, but because of the undermining of our country's valuing of liberty and law. We are unlike any other nation, because we are a government "for the people and by the people". Let us count our blessing todays and not forget the costs of liberty and furthering justice.

Aren't you glad that you live in America?

Religious Terms Have Material Meaning

Religious terms have material meaning, if they are considered "real". In certain Christian circles,
where a separation or holiness message is important, the term "circumcsion of the heart" or "sanctification" is used. Although the term "heart" is used, the emotional reality of pain, is just as painful as Islam's physical circumcision of their girls.

In "Infidel", Hirshi Ali tells in painful detail about her physical circumcision. Muslims believe that 'purity" is of uptmost importance, so to "protect" their young women from intercourse before marriage, they sew up her vagina area, as well as circumcise her clitoris. The circumcision of the clitoris is to "prevent" pleasure in intercourse. "Pleasure" is considered an "evil".

The "protection" of the Christian believer is no different, as the "circumcision of the heart" is considered to be necessary to "purify" motives and desires. God is to be the only desire and pleasure. Just as the cutting away the clitoris, the "sanctified believer" cuts away every pleasure and desire that his heart is set upon, other than God. Both circumcisions forbid a basic human desire; pleasure in this world.

Pleasure in this world is viewed as "evil" and "fallen". The desire of the heart is to be focused only on God's will and purpose. Although I agree that one cannot be addicted to any one pleasure, there is strong question as to the creation order itself in affirming this understanding. Since these believers believe in the "creation order", why did God take the time to create such diversity in the world? Why do we see in color?

In Sunday's sermon, Timothy was used as an example of the "need for circumcision". Timothy is known in the Christian Scriptures as a disciple of Paul. Since he was born of Greek and Jewish parents, tradition tells us that Paul commended his circumcision, so that he could "reach the Jew" with the "gospel".

Hirshi Ali tells about her Somalian "tradition"'s training and her eventual escape from a planned marriage and the struggle she had in the West. Her sheer will-power to overcome such obstacles, both real and otherwise, are inspiring to read. I admire her for her determination, courage and commitment to seek a way out.

There is something sinister about another person determining another's life. In our country, we are not allowed that determination, as we believe in free moral agency. But, this was not the majority's view in our earliest Founding.

The majority held to various religious viewpoints, but the Founders wanted to base our government on freedom first and foremost, as without freedom there is determination. And America is not a caste society, not by man or by God.

Walled Hearts and Walled Religions

Many years ago when I was in undergraduate education as an adult, I wrote a paper for my"World Religions" course. In that paper, I wrote, "is a rose by any other name, just a sweet?" That question haunted me, but has come to have meaning to what I believe nowadays.

Is a rose by any other name, just as sweet? Yes, of course, it is. The word "rose" conjures up an image to those that have been exposed to roses and sometimes it can activate the sense of smell in our memories. But, what if someone had not known the flower by the name "rose"? If they smelled a rose, called a "chamelleon", would it smell the same? Yes! Would it be the same flower? Yes, even though it was called by a different name. The same goes for true faith and one's character.

My point in all of this "rambling" is this: is the "Christ figure" just as sweet by any other name? Is the Christ figure represented by other names, such as Gandhi, Mother Theresa, uncle Joe and aunt Harriet? Does the "image" of Christ have meaning besides the person of Jesus of Nazareth (if he is a historical person)? What is the Christ image? And does the Christ image have to be manifested in the same way as Jesus of Nazareth?

The Greek Fathers understood the image of god in man. They knew about representation within real time, not the "City of God" of St. Augustine. This is where all religions point beyond themselves to a world beyond our knowing. Some agnostics may find solace in idenifying with a community of faith as they understand the purpose of myth and myth-making. Others may find more solace in understanding their connectedness to sciences' "real reality" in this world. It really doesn't matter, as both types of agnostics will "do faith" in their own realms of influence. Both types have come to terms with faith as a real "unknown" and unknowable mystery about life in its complexity.

I named my paper "Walled Hearts and Walled Religions" because this is what I think hinders the "ideal" world, life and value. Walls bring definition, but do not bring resolution or reconciliation. Walls keep others out, while protecting one's understanding of oneself within comfortable zones of definitions, behaviors, and religious rites.

Today's world is torn because of these walls. Walls that hinder and resist. Walled hearts are not open to another's views. And walled ideas are not about academic or religious freedom. We are bound by the very definitions that we make. We enslave ourselves from our small-mindedness and our fears.

The reason I changed my major from sociology to religion and philosophy was because of an ethics course. That very ethics professor just recently died. I owe him a lot. I wrote a paper for that course about moral development and moral character. He told me at graduation that it was brillant. I found it hard to believe, but the more I have learned, the more I have come to understand that character is indeed the essence of life and it doesn't really matter about religion.

Moral behavior is more about attitude first and foremost, not behavior, as behavior is culturally bound. But, whenever moral behavior is defined by a tightly defined cultural understanding, it is a means of oppression and a hinderance to moral development. Ethics would not allow such "standards" to stand, as it is more important to protect human rights, than any cultural "ideal".

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.

Personal Identity and Political Reality

Political Reality is where we live, work and play. These contexts breed the social aspects in one's life. But, these contexts also include how we understand our faith.

Some have separated the sacred and the secular aspects of life, as they represent different "domains". But, the separation of the sacred and secular dissolves religion into belief systems. While belief systems do underlie our behavior, the Church was "committed" to "political reality", or the real world. These realities were not to be separated according to "orthodox faith". Faith is known by behavior, but faith based behavior is not based on rationale, or reason. Faith and Reason have always challenged the Church.

Religious communities have tried to identify how they "help" or what "role" they play in the political realm, where real reality is played out within history. Some of these communities have attempted to "connect" the sacred and secular together within a "moral model". These 'models" which became wholesale theological systems were not based on real history, personal experience, or reason, but on faith. Such is the case in Christian faith with Jesus of Nazereth. These "models" represent certain attributes or universals that might be "missing" within political realities in a given situation.

But, while such theological terms as "incarnation" and "emergent properties" try to "connect" reality to God, as if God exists "outside of time and space, others try to dissolve the distinction of the sacred and secular altogether. I think that this is more healthy, as whenever we signify distinctions, then we separate over issues that divide, instead of unite.

Any and everything is given, so we should not be about the business of making such fine distinctions between the "spiritual and the non-spiritual". There is enough "reality" for anyone to "fit". We must be about the business of allowing the freedom of religious expression of all kinds (and that includes atheism) within the political realm without dissolving the differences of value commitments. This is what the American experiment is/was about. As long as religious freedom does not demand allegience, or subversion of the rule of law, then there should be full expression of religion in the public square.

Ideological Commitments in a Free Society

There has been some suggestion that ideology should not drive policy, such as medicine. This is absurd. Although most of us do not realize what our ideological commitments are, we do have them. And sometimes, these commitments are inconsistent, which brings about a befuddlement when anyone addresses our inconsistencies.I am in the process of thinking through and developing my ideological commitments.

This is a necessary process for me to have consistentency, principle, and commitment in my life. Fortunately, I have the priviledge and luxury to be able to do this, as many in our world do not.

Ideology should drive our values, commitments, and our lives and help us to process the decisions before us.I do no think and I think I am strongly opinionated about, an imposition from the outside of an ideology, which is basically, oppression of reason's value.

Ideology must not just be tolerant to the individual's development, but also, must be reasonable to those who may disagree. Ideologies must recognize their relativity in space and time. Ideologies must remain humble, in their assessments and in the process of carrying on a civilized discussion about what ideology should drive policy.I think that the worst sort of ideological commitment is an absolutizing of State or Religion.
draft
7:40:

Discrimination,Morality, Banking, and Business

The news reported this morning that a Muslim owned bank in Michigan would
do business according to "shairhia law'. The concern was over the "trojan horses" attached to this banking business in their lending practices. The question is one of discrimination, morality and law and it concerns our Constitution, and form of government, as well as our experience of life.

Does a business have a "religious right" to "freedom"? We have legislated that religious institutions are free from taxation, as we believe in the separation of Church and State. But, do the politically-motivated religious have a right to "do business" with "strings attached"? Can a Muslim business use "shairh'ia" law to discriminate about the use of the money loaned? In other words, can these religious/political banks limit the use of the money and determine so, by "shairh'ia" arbitrators?

My husband doesn't think that our country would allow the discrimination under shairh'ia, but many have been concerned about the religious freedom of Christians. Now, it seems, that if religious freedom is allowed for the Christian, then there should be no discrimination toward Islam, either. But, at what costs? Islam is a politicized religion. Their religion does no allow for freedom of conscience. This is troubling, as our whole understanding and system of government was formed around "a freedom of conscience". How can we, as a nation, tolerate the intolerant?

I'm sure lawyers, civil libertarians, and political philosophers have been hard at work in thinking through these complex issues. At what point does business intrude into another's political "conscience". Today's need is not one of religious freedom so much as political freedom. Without political freedom, there is no religious freedom, no matter what a theologian says!

The Consent of the Governed and Religious Freedom

Politics is the domain where we work, play, worship, and live our lives. The political realm is the network of our communities, colleagues, and other social connections. What our political policy and understanding of government that runs the policy is an important one, as it affects all of life.

We are no longer ruled by "the divine right of kings". This is the prinicple of our revolution of England's king to reign over us. Taxation without representation was an important "pivot point" because those who led the revolution felt that all people were created equal under law. That we were not to be a colony, but an independent government. This had/has major implications in understanding faith.

Many fled to America for religious freedom, but finding a place to worship as one saw fit, did not alleviate the need to form a "government'. Church government became a point of contention and led to many dissentions and splits. Some sects thought that the "heretical" should suffer persecution, or worse, death. Those who held such views had not given up on the "divine right of God" and how they understood man's duty toward the "transcendental realm". These believed in a personal God. Believers were not the only ones that made American history, but it was a value that is upheld in our Constitution and the separation of Church and State.

Everyone has an understanding or an "ideal" of what government should "look like" and this is the realm of political discourse. It is the realm of what "should be" and "how it should be accomplished". For the most part, Republicans and Democrats have a different view about what that should look like. Although the political parties have political platforms that formally describe their positions, these positions differ in particular individuals within these parties. Some have even attempted to form a Third Party, but not with much sucess.

Republicans believe in "free market economics" and family values, limited government, etc., while the Democrats believe in social concern in government programs, enlarging government and limiting the free market.

I find that our freedoms politically are the most important value to uphold, as without freedom there is little room for development of individual values, commitments, beliefs, lifestyle, etc. Political freedom is valued by all humans.

The consent of the governed is based on social contract, ethics, human rights, and political freedom. We cannot have morality, or ethical choice apart from political freedom. This very freedom was what some came to our shores to find. Today, Americans have liberty because of the commitment of men and women who were willing to lay their lives down for it. We should do no less!

The Ethical Questions Posed....

I went to hear two of our professors talk about genetic engineering yesterday, in regards to changing behavior. The two professors represented religion, and biology. And the discussion crossed those disciplinary lines concerning sin, salvation and sanctification.

The discussion is not new to me, as my husband is a Bio-physist and we had been exposed to these discussions over 25 years ago at the University of Rochester during his post-doctoral experience.

The premise was that if behavior is determined to be genetic, such as alcoholism and certain mental disorders have been, then, the solution for "sin", salvation and sanctification would be to genetically correct the problem.

I have nothing against changing genes, per se. But, this opens up a "can of worms" for me concerning ethics. When is the genetic predisposition determined? at birth or when the behavior manifests itself? Or when families have this propensity? Who keeps the records, the State?

What is sin? How is it defined and by what authority? Will there be religious freedom if one believes in another type of authority, than societal? Is genetic "salvation" mandated by the State? the Chruch?

What is sanctification, then? Is it only behaving in a certain way, when the predisposition is there but the societal norm is prohibitive?

Is the determination of human genetic predisposition to be based upon any finding in the physical world, as it was argued that homosexual behavior among certain insects showed this tendency? If so, how does one keep from reducing man to the physical alone, i.e. reductionism?

I recognize that the Scriptures are written in an ancient context and it must be "transformed" in some way to have relavancy at large, but how do we protect religious freedom? Or should we look to ethics as a means to answer the questions concerning man in the face of scientific discovery, so that man is not reduced to his lowest denominator. And should we also limit the political realm of deeming a scientific "solution" mandated, thus, protecting religious conscience?

These are interesting questions that must be discussed by all of the disciplines, so that all voices that represent man, are heard and heard loudly, before any political determinants can be made...Science has always given "grief" to the Church, but it has also blessed man. We must understand how to use science, politics, and religion as a means of blessing. These areas are of most importance in today's climate of globalization.

Religious Freedom and Values

This past week-end at a friend's house, my husband and I watched an Arabic TV show on Islam. After watching this program, we turned to Fox news and watched "Honor Killings", where two American teenagers were murdered by their father within America's borders. In light of certain "tolerance" messages that I've recently recieved via e-mail, I am becoming more and more disturbed.

Religious freedom was a value America was founded on. Today, we find ourselves stressed to find a solution when it comes to religious freedoms. Immigration used to mean that the new Americans assimilated and became part of the "melting pot". Today, America has many segregated niches within her borders.

What does this mean when it comes to religious freedom? On one hand our nation's laws have been tolerant toward religious expression, it has been the wall between Church and State. Tolerance has been valued on the basis of reason, because experience has taught us that without it, we stand to loose much more than just religious freedom.

But, today's climate breeds a contradiction in terms to our religious tolerance. Islamic fundamentalists are not tolerant to religious freedoms or to laws that protect religious freedom. So, if our courts "take up the cause" of determining what defines religious intolerance, then are we not at the doors of a State determining or evaluating a religion's "right" to exist? Will we be tempted to create sanctioned "state religions"?

In light of the "honor" killings, we cannot look the other way when it comes to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", can we? Make no mistake about it, fundamentalist religions do not tolerate diversity. Religion, in this sense, is conformity to certain standards that are measurable. And these standards justify many "heart sins" as well as overt killings in the name of "god". The values we hold for the individual are despised by these types of religious interpretations. Written texts are literal and are implemented in the name of "god". It is based on a shame and honor culture that uses fear, intimidation, humiliation and any other "justified" means to implement a standardized culture upon humans. It is not humane because the concern is for "god" and not Man.

The question for America is: should we trust the Islamic "moderates", who promise to educate the "peasants" about moderation? Will education in the usual sense make a difference for those who have been "brain-washed" (in a cultic sense)? And how does America in the meantime "do" foreign policy when it comes to rogue nations? Do we still believe that all desire to be "free" as individuals? And do the Churches within America's borders believe that the individual is a valued "image-bearer", who have certain inalienable rights or do American churches have a "group identity"? Isn't part of our American Christian experiment our diversity in viewpoints? And isn't diversity where our denominations define our religion? Isn't faith really about being human, instead of the dogma and doctrines of the Church of the past?