Life is filled with complex problems, not just within one's own frame of reference, but the world at large. There is definately no easy solution in the political realm. We all will approach problems with different ways of viewing the problem and the way we think best to solve the problem. The challenge is to those that have such conviction of thinking and being in the world, that there is little room for considering or viewing another's way of thinking, understanding or seeing how the problems can be solved. For these, the principled conscience is the ultimate determinor of their values. And these people believe that without such a principle, then "life" is doomed, and solutions will not be forthcoming.
Such a principled conscience is what causes conflict in the world, because of differences of principle and how that is understood within one's conscience or value system.
How is one to be humane to those whose principle leaves little room for diversity of conscience, or value? The only option it to agree to disagree and go one's way. But, when those with such opinions hold the reigns of power, these become dangerous to peace, because they become ideologically driven, whether by a material or spiritual motivation.
Our country is divided these days by such a division of "principle". The political realm is filled till it sickens the average citizen away from participating or caring about their country and protecting and promoting liberty and justice. Such "principled conscience" becomes a war that is not open to dialogue, but demands surrender of the other side. The Founders would have been aghast.
Although our Founders understood that orthodoxy was not the absolute in terms of expressing reality, neither did they think that scientific explaination would do, either, when it came to liberty and justice for all. The Founders were open to formulate a government that deemed equality before the law for its citizens. The law was "KING", no longer a "Divine Ruler, King".
The law protects its citizens by representing their interests, not in spite of their interests. "Self interest" and "Self government" was an investment in this experiential form of government. As citizens sought to better their life through their various pursuits, the world was "wide open". These pursuits only furthered the prosperity of the country in a free market and a free society. The only inhibition was in protection of another's same right to their interests.
Today, the public square is filled with various voices and opinions about how our government should run, what it should promote, and how it should all be accomplished. Our culture wars are intense debates about these principles of conscience.
How do we describe the world, and its reality? What is to be the focus of government, or should government have a focus, apart from a passive submission to "the people"? What interests should our government have abroad? And on what basis are those interests based and should it matter? Some may even believe that our government should have no interests abroad, but this seems improbable since the world has already stepped into that domain. American must play some part if she wants to continue to be a player in the game of trade, commerce, finance, and investments.
So, what is the value of a principled conscience? The value of a principled conscience is a value of identity, a value of commitment, purpose and life orientation. If we want to remain free and open to uphold justice for all, then we cannot let our principled consciences run the whole show. We must remain humane and civil in our differences.
Showing posts with label the Founding Fathers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the Founding Fathers. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
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?
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".
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".
Saturday, March 6, 2010
History in the Making...
Many people who live in free societies, understand that humans have the ability to "make history". These like to "make their mark" in the world through many creative avenues. And free societies allow and encourage such activity.
History's "history" has been debated as to its understanding. I have been following a few blogs on the historicity of Jesus and the following traditions. Some say history is an "art", while others prefer to view history as a science.
Ancient historians were politically motivated, as well as situationally situated, as the 'elite' were the ones that made the rules, and "called the shots". Those that followed these ancient leaders viewed them as "gods". And theirs was the fate of a leader's ambition. The "Greeks" called it "fate". Our Founders called it Providence.
Myth was always useful in these societies to create meaning or to embellish the facts, so that leaders could manuever those under them to understand their vision and to co-operate.
In human development studies, James Fowler has found that faith at it highest development understands faith as "symbol" or mythological. These myths create meaningful "worlds" for social norms and standards. And it has been understood by the religious to be the basis of our "laws".
But, America's Founders also sought an opportunity to create a unique "vision" of liberty and justice for those under religious persecution. These were using the opportunities before them to find fortune, as well as liberty of life. Taxation was the point of "no return" for the colonists, as the abuse of power united factions that otherwsie would not have been united. And the result was a 'new nation" that was founded on the rights of men, and not the right of "gods".
I think today is no less a "point of no return" if those in power continue on their course, irregardless of how their constituencies view matters. Even though our county is representative, we do believe that there are avenues of "voice" and that public engagement is a necessary part of maintaining our liberty.
So, even though I am concerned for my nation, I have hope that things will turn around and that tomorrow will bring a 'new day'. Not all countries and their peoples have that right to liberty.
I am so grateful for our liberty.
History's "history" has been debated as to its understanding. I have been following a few blogs on the historicity of Jesus and the following traditions. Some say history is an "art", while others prefer to view history as a science.
Ancient historians were politically motivated, as well as situationally situated, as the 'elite' were the ones that made the rules, and "called the shots". Those that followed these ancient leaders viewed them as "gods". And theirs was the fate of a leader's ambition. The "Greeks" called it "fate". Our Founders called it Providence.
Myth was always useful in these societies to create meaning or to embellish the facts, so that leaders could manuever those under them to understand their vision and to co-operate.
In human development studies, James Fowler has found that faith at it highest development understands faith as "symbol" or mythological. These myths create meaningful "worlds" for social norms and standards. And it has been understood by the religious to be the basis of our "laws".
But, America's Founders also sought an opportunity to create a unique "vision" of liberty and justice for those under religious persecution. These were using the opportunities before them to find fortune, as well as liberty of life. Taxation was the point of "no return" for the colonists, as the abuse of power united factions that otherwsie would not have been united. And the result was a 'new nation" that was founded on the rights of men, and not the right of "gods".
I think today is no less a "point of no return" if those in power continue on their course, irregardless of how their constituencies view matters. Even though our county is representative, we do believe that there are avenues of "voice" and that public engagement is a necessary part of maintaining our liberty.
So, even though I am concerned for my nation, I have hope that things will turn around and that tomorrow will bring a 'new day'. Not all countries and their peoples have that right to liberty.
I am so grateful for our liberty.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Why Democracy is the Most Important Value
This morning I have been thinking about liberty, and how thankful I am that I live in a free society. Here are some quotes, from philosophers, politicians, Christians, and journalists that value democracy and uphold liberty of conscience.
Anna Garlin Spencer:
The earth is ready, the time is ripe, for the authoritative expression of the feminine as well as the masculine interpretation of that common social consensus which is slowly writing justice in the State and fraternity in the social order.
Aristotle:
If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.
Barry Goldwater:
Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed.
-->C. S. Lewis:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Dorothy Thompson:
Of all forms of government and society, those of free men and women are in many respects the most brittle. They give the fullest freedom for activities of private persons and groups who often identify their own interests, essentially selfish, with the general welfare.
Individuals must protect the liberty of the other, if they want to protect it for themselves. And I don't believe that some think that this is reasonable, because they think that how they find "life" is how everyone finds it. Their understanding should be everyone's, because it is ultimately true. Arrogance is borne on the heels of ignorance, or power and both must be tempered by "education".
This morning there was a cartoon of an elephant and donkey that were looking up to see "tea bags" raining from the sky! I herald the effort of the tea parties, as I think this is the only way to win the war against tyranny. We must educate ourselves about our historical roots and determine that we will resist tyranny. Let's hope that the means that our Founders "put in place" are still enforceable and that there are enough people who care and have the power to use those means!
Anna Garlin Spencer:
The earth is ready, the time is ripe, for the authoritative expression of the feminine as well as the masculine interpretation of that common social consensus which is slowly writing justice in the State and fraternity in the social order.
Aristotle:
If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.
Barry Goldwater:
Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed.
-->C. S. Lewis:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Dorothy Thompson:
Of all forms of government and society, those of free men and women are in many respects the most brittle. They give the fullest freedom for activities of private persons and groups who often identify their own interests, essentially selfish, with the general welfare.
Individuals must protect the liberty of the other, if they want to protect it for themselves. And I don't believe that some think that this is reasonable, because they think that how they find "life" is how everyone finds it. Their understanding should be everyone's, because it is ultimately true. Arrogance is borne on the heels of ignorance, or power and both must be tempered by "education".
This morning there was a cartoon of an elephant and donkey that were looking up to see "tea bags" raining from the sky! I herald the effort of the tea parties, as I think this is the only way to win the war against tyranny. We must educate ourselves about our historical roots and determine that we will resist tyranny. Let's hope that the means that our Founders "put in place" are still enforceable and that there are enough people who care and have the power to use those means!
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Life and Liberty
Yesterday, I was engaged in a "conversation" on another blog about the political order and was "stuck" on the collapse of the sacred and secular for me. My "world" has collapsed into a natural and real world of existence. No more anesthesia for me.
Life is deadened through religion's "moral" thinking sometimes. The religious become so concerned about where their lines are drawn that they cease to Live as life was meant to be lived.
So, I am committed to "Life and Liberty". These are the ideals of our Founding Fathers and these are what make for the "good life". No one should be doomed to live their lives under dire constraints of oppressive regimes that limit expressions of human creativity. The huma condition needs these creative spirits to "give life" to the "deadened".
If God exists, it is no wonder that there are not many that want anything to do with that concept. Everything in a 'religious culture' from "Black stockings" to banning "Harry Potter" do not draw or appeal to the natural way man has been created to respond to "beauty", "mystery" and "concepts" that open up life, instead of drawing lines in the sand. This is diverse universe that is immensely complex. Simplicity doesn't work as it crushes, defines, defends, and marginalizes life.
Liberty is what life is about.
Life is deadened through religion's "moral" thinking sometimes. The religious become so concerned about where their lines are drawn that they cease to Live as life was meant to be lived.
So, I am committed to "Life and Liberty". These are the ideals of our Founding Fathers and these are what make for the "good life". No one should be doomed to live their lives under dire constraints of oppressive regimes that limit expressions of human creativity. The huma condition needs these creative spirits to "give life" to the "deadened".
If God exists, it is no wonder that there are not many that want anything to do with that concept. Everything in a 'religious culture' from "Black stockings" to banning "Harry Potter" do not draw or appeal to the natural way man has been created to respond to "beauty", "mystery" and "concepts" that open up life, instead of drawing lines in the sand. This is diverse universe that is immensely complex. Simplicity doesn't work as it crushes, defines, defends, and marginalizes life.
Liberty is what life is about.
Friday, September 11, 2009
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?
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?
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Other Racial Issues
Issues such as race have various emotional responses due to one's experience, understanding and conditioning. We, in America, have the "ideal" that all are created equal and should be represented by "law". These are citizen rights.
But, with today's climate of radicalization of religion, race seems to matter more. Americans and others in the West have experienced, and seen what happens to those who dismiss the danger of radical religion. So, in today's climate, we not only divide ourselves along racial lines, but religious ones, as well.
Just yesterday, a Muslim prindipal dismissed a Christian teacher. My husband told me that it was due to his Christian faith. Because Americans are "taught" that toleration is the highest virtue, we tend not to try to distinguish when we need to. Just as the lady who called the police was "at fault", even though she did what was reasonable and upheld the standards of good citzenship, Islam has a "favored" status when it comes to discrimination. And African Americans have favored status as it concerns Affirmative Action.
Minority rights grants a prividledge to those on the basis of their skin color or their religion. Is this just? When we try to rectify the past, are we harming the future and inadvertedly hindering all of us in being Americans, first? Why are we identifying ourselves as "African-American", "American Indian", or "American caucasian"? We are divided by "racial" and "religious" histories, instead of owning our national history and its development into a nation of diverse peoples, where the individual is acknowledged and valued. The Founding Fathers made our nation a nation ruled by law, and no "special elite", whether religious or racial. This is the freedom and value of being "equal under law".
Instead of identifying along the lines of "group think" which distinguishes what is uneccesary, why not distinguish ourselves as individual Americans? With America's ideals, and progressiveness, do we doubt that we could find a better tomorrow? We need to get back to thinking responsibly about our country and its values, not taking them for granted, but upholding the value of citizenship. And we need to be thankful for the freedoms and all that it allows in our diverse and blessed country.
But, with today's climate of radicalization of religion, race seems to matter more. Americans and others in the West have experienced, and seen what happens to those who dismiss the danger of radical religion. So, in today's climate, we not only divide ourselves along racial lines, but religious ones, as well.
Just yesterday, a Muslim prindipal dismissed a Christian teacher. My husband told me that it was due to his Christian faith. Because Americans are "taught" that toleration is the highest virtue, we tend not to try to distinguish when we need to. Just as the lady who called the police was "at fault", even though she did what was reasonable and upheld the standards of good citzenship, Islam has a "favored" status when it comes to discrimination. And African Americans have favored status as it concerns Affirmative Action.
Minority rights grants a prividledge to those on the basis of their skin color or their religion. Is this just? When we try to rectify the past, are we harming the future and inadvertedly hindering all of us in being Americans, first? Why are we identifying ourselves as "African-American", "American Indian", or "American caucasian"? We are divided by "racial" and "religious" histories, instead of owning our national history and its development into a nation of diverse peoples, where the individual is acknowledged and valued. The Founding Fathers made our nation a nation ruled by law, and no "special elite", whether religious or racial. This is the freedom and value of being "equal under law".
Instead of identifying along the lines of "group think" which distinguishes what is uneccesary, why not distinguish ourselves as individual Americans? With America's ideals, and progressiveness, do we doubt that we could find a better tomorrow? We need to get back to thinking responsibly about our country and its values, not taking them for granted, but upholding the value of citizenship. And we need to be thankful for the freedoms and all that it allows in our diverse and blessed country.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
OOPS! FREEDOM is NOT FIRST
In my last post, I made a statement that our Founders wanted to based our country first and foremost on freedom. This is partly wrong, I think. While freedom is the result of our Constitutional government, the Founders wanted to base our country on the 'rule of law' and not arbitrary authority or power. This is an important distinction, as without law, a government cannot be ordered.
"Ordered Liberty" is our Founders' "frame". We should be so thankful!!!
"Ordered Liberty" is our Founders' "frame". We should be so thankful!!!
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Corruption and Compromise in High Places
The news is filled with the downfall of many of our leaders and we yawn. Our democracy is only as strong as the leaders' commitment to value the ideals of our Founding Fathers. Some believe that without personal character, these ideals will be compromised. Others suggest that even our Founders were immoral in certain areas of their lives. Does it matter?
A leader has a relationship of some kind to those he leads. Trust is of major importance in any relationship. For if trust is broken, those that follow are hesitant or questioning the leader's "vision". The question is, "Is trust based on the lifestyle and example of the leader or the ideals ("vision") of the leader"?
Conservatives believe that there must be congruency in one's life. One's ideals cannot be disconnected from one's character. This seems to be why conservatives are "inspected" by the media and others with more scrunity. Hypocrisy is not the "ideal" of anyone for leadership.
Liberals seem to have more room to "fail" in their personal lives, with little or no consequence. Liberals disconnect thier private life from their public "vision". People seem to accept this separation, for the most part, for America likes to protect their private life from public scrutiny.
The separation of the private and public sector is what the separation of Church and State was based upon. One's personal convictions about morals did not impinge upon one's public "ideals". How can we trust that if a man "compromises" on his most intimate relationship, that he will "stay true" in other matters of public interest? The "game" has become one of "hide and seek". If one can "cover up" thier private indiscretions from the media, then "all is well". American freedom has become American license.
Though I believe that one's personal commitments do illustrate commitment to the public interests, I do not believe that dissolving the line between the public and private sector in public affairs is the way to build public welfare.
Just last night the President gave his "vision" for healthcare reform. We have seen and heard this all before. It is nothing new. But, those who are finding their monetary resources at an all time low, and wondering how to meet their debts are "open targets" for this kind of propaganda. We have been warned that those who hold debt, will inevitable be enslaved to the debt holders. But, America continues to live on 'credit" and dismiss the warning of our Founder's wisdom.
Why am I concerned about another government takeover of healthcare? Healthcare accounts for one of the highest areas of our GNP. Government beauracracies can "hide" many outrageous expenses, which are useful for those in government to create their own "business" at public expense (taxes). We have seen how contractors charge the government outrageous prices for government "needs". The tax-payer foots the bill.
My son told me that while we were in Europe, Glenn Beck featured a story about 134.5 Billion dollars of our government bonds being confiscated at the Italian border. No one seems to know if these bonds are conterfeit, if the two Japanese are being held, or why these bonds were being smuggled across the Italian border. The Treasury Department seems to be unconcerned, as they have "investigated" by looking at the bonds on the internet! Why has this news story been suppressed? There are many "imanginative scenarios".
What has a public servant, healthcare and American bonds have in common? American interests! The interest of the American people should be the concern of the public servant.
Healthcare cannot be "invested" in the government without public accountability through stock-holders that have interests that are open to public scrunity. We are, after all, a government "for the people and by the people", not a government "for the people, by the government".
American bonds are a sacred trust of public interests in American economic viability. Certainly, the media would hold public servants accountable for such a large (1%) of our GNP and investigate and inform the American people! Or is there a "cover-up" of the American government about our real economic "problems"? Are we indebted to countries that hold our values? Or are we going to be enslaved to those who want to rule us by tyranny?
No one is above "falling" morally, but if we do not hold leadership for their failures, then we will never be able to trust our government. Unfortunately, trust has been broken for so long, that we have become cynical about our government and most American's don't even listen or care about what is happening.
A leader has a relationship of some kind to those he leads. Trust is of major importance in any relationship. For if trust is broken, those that follow are hesitant or questioning the leader's "vision". The question is, "Is trust based on the lifestyle and example of the leader or the ideals ("vision") of the leader"?
Conservatives believe that there must be congruency in one's life. One's ideals cannot be disconnected from one's character. This seems to be why conservatives are "inspected" by the media and others with more scrunity. Hypocrisy is not the "ideal" of anyone for leadership.
Liberals seem to have more room to "fail" in their personal lives, with little or no consequence. Liberals disconnect thier private life from their public "vision". People seem to accept this separation, for the most part, for America likes to protect their private life from public scrutiny.
The separation of the private and public sector is what the separation of Church and State was based upon. One's personal convictions about morals did not impinge upon one's public "ideals". How can we trust that if a man "compromises" on his most intimate relationship, that he will "stay true" in other matters of public interest? The "game" has become one of "hide and seek". If one can "cover up" thier private indiscretions from the media, then "all is well". American freedom has become American license.
Though I believe that one's personal commitments do illustrate commitment to the public interests, I do not believe that dissolving the line between the public and private sector in public affairs is the way to build public welfare.
Just last night the President gave his "vision" for healthcare reform. We have seen and heard this all before. It is nothing new. But, those who are finding their monetary resources at an all time low, and wondering how to meet their debts are "open targets" for this kind of propaganda. We have been warned that those who hold debt, will inevitable be enslaved to the debt holders. But, America continues to live on 'credit" and dismiss the warning of our Founder's wisdom.
Why am I concerned about another government takeover of healthcare? Healthcare accounts for one of the highest areas of our GNP. Government beauracracies can "hide" many outrageous expenses, which are useful for those in government to create their own "business" at public expense (taxes). We have seen how contractors charge the government outrageous prices for government "needs". The tax-payer foots the bill.
My son told me that while we were in Europe, Glenn Beck featured a story about 134.5 Billion dollars of our government bonds being confiscated at the Italian border. No one seems to know if these bonds are conterfeit, if the two Japanese are being held, or why these bonds were being smuggled across the Italian border. The Treasury Department seems to be unconcerned, as they have "investigated" by looking at the bonds on the internet! Why has this news story been suppressed? There are many "imanginative scenarios".
What has a public servant, healthcare and American bonds have in common? American interests! The interest of the American people should be the concern of the public servant.
Healthcare cannot be "invested" in the government without public accountability through stock-holders that have interests that are open to public scrunity. We are, after all, a government "for the people and by the people", not a government "for the people, by the government".
American bonds are a sacred trust of public interests in American economic viability. Certainly, the media would hold public servants accountable for such a large (1%) of our GNP and investigate and inform the American people! Or is there a "cover-up" of the American government about our real economic "problems"? Are we indebted to countries that hold our values? Or are we going to be enslaved to those who want to rule us by tyranny?
No one is above "falling" morally, but if we do not hold leadership for their failures, then we will never be able to trust our government. Unfortunately, trust has been broken for so long, that we have become cynical about our government and most American's don't even listen or care about what is happening.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Individual Choice, Social Contract, and Freedom
Our individualism in America has its roots in Protestantism. Protestantism is a "protest" against the Church and its abuses of power. But, the Protestant Church found itself split again and again over questions about the sacraments and Church government. Church government was understood to maintain the social structure of the "elect", in however that was understood. America, on the other hand, was born to undermine "election" and give room and voice to each and every citizen.
America was founded on principles of the Enlightenment; reason, natural law, and an understanding of "moral principles" that guided civil society, which was the basis of the "rule of law". The Founders were not evangelical believers, but men of reason, who desired to create a "more perfect union" that gave the individual a voice about their life and their pursuits.
While America's tradition was undeveloped and never gained the traditional strength of traditional cultures, it did have "order" and structure that was based on equality of opportunity, which underwrote justice and liberty. The limited government that the Founders created was to "value individual" rights, while forbidding the sanction of any one religious tradition.
Their understanding was that government was to protect the people by providing a military and maintaining order by balancing power between the states. Centralization was debated by Hamilton (?), but not all of the Founders understood the government's power in such a way. Centralization became more prevalent when socialized programs started to provide and over-rode the individual and State's right to liberty. The social contract became underwritten by the government, instead of the government respecting the 'other party' in the contract.
I think that this is the very "pivot point" to our understanding what is happening with globalization and nationalism today. Where the State had the right to "hold property" which were the slaves that helped maintain economic stability in the South, government's moral "voice" determined through war that slavery was universally wrong. Human rights and "nationalism" were born.
Modernity is based on man's reason, which is developed within certain paradigms. It is not usual, except in free societies and liberal families that people are exposed to "more than one way of understanding life". Worldviews, which are reasonable explainations about life and how reality functions are ways in which people identify. But, reason is not the epitome of reality, although it is useful for living in constructing "a more perfect answer" for faith.
I think that without freedom, individual choice, and social contract, the world is a dark and forboding place that subverts justice, limits freedom devalues the human. I don't choose to live in such a world and most people who have a choice (and know that they have a choice) would not either.
America was founded on principles of the Enlightenment; reason, natural law, and an understanding of "moral principles" that guided civil society, which was the basis of the "rule of law". The Founders were not evangelical believers, but men of reason, who desired to create a "more perfect union" that gave the individual a voice about their life and their pursuits.
While America's tradition was undeveloped and never gained the traditional strength of traditional cultures, it did have "order" and structure that was based on equality of opportunity, which underwrote justice and liberty. The limited government that the Founders created was to "value individual" rights, while forbidding the sanction of any one religious tradition.
Their understanding was that government was to protect the people by providing a military and maintaining order by balancing power between the states. Centralization was debated by Hamilton (?), but not all of the Founders understood the government's power in such a way. Centralization became more prevalent when socialized programs started to provide and over-rode the individual and State's right to liberty. The social contract became underwritten by the government, instead of the government respecting the 'other party' in the contract.
I think that this is the very "pivot point" to our understanding what is happening with globalization and nationalism today. Where the State had the right to "hold property" which were the slaves that helped maintain economic stability in the South, government's moral "voice" determined through war that slavery was universally wrong. Human rights and "nationalism" were born.
Modernity is based on man's reason, which is developed within certain paradigms. It is not usual, except in free societies and liberal families that people are exposed to "more than one way of understanding life". Worldviews, which are reasonable explainations about life and how reality functions are ways in which people identify. But, reason is not the epitome of reality, although it is useful for living in constructing "a more perfect answer" for faith.
I think that without freedom, individual choice, and social contract, the world is a dark and forboding place that subverts justice, limits freedom devalues the human. I don't choose to live in such a world and most people who have a choice (and know that they have a choice) would not either.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Culture Wars Are Ideological
Culture wars center on ideology. And ideology determines how one understands, and 'puts together" their understanding.
In today's America there is a battle for "truth", which is "real history". This battle is not fought just within our borders, but in the wider world, as it affects the world at large.
There are some that believe that our nation's founding was to promote a Christian ideology. What transpires when this thinking is allowed without challenge, is a type of fundamentalism in application of "authorial sources", whether that be scripture or Church tradition/authorities. Who decides what is to be "real reality", i.e. power in the political realm.
I believe our Founding Fathers were theistic rationalists. They understood the implications of allowing a Church tradition (that includes scriptural traditions) to play out politically. It ends in war over whose interpretation, whose "right" is to be defended, and where will that play out in the reality of others lives who don't believe as the "ruling party". They protected us from this situation by the "Establishment Clause".
Conservative Christians have been concerned over the country's "moral demise" and have entered the public square to influence legislatures to implement their form of "truth". The "Moral Majority" was born and social activism was birthed in the pulpits of many churches. The evanlgelicals were known to have the traditonal values and commitments to the "family, pro-life, and anti-gay" movements. These positions played out politically in lobbying, petitioning, protesting, and appealing. If one did not adhere to these standards, then Christian faith was doubtful.
The Christian Church became political in every aspect, as their view was "total commitment" to Christian values. "Toltal commitment" to Christian values broke the wall between separation of Church and State, re-wrote history, and alienated those whose political views might differ.
I have been reading the writings of our Founding Fathers and find their insight profound. These men were not "Bible believing" Christians, but Deists, theistic rationalist, unitarians, etc. They valued freedom of conscience, when it pertained to religious matters. And they found that tyranny was often the result of combining religion and politics.
Whenever ideology does not allow open dialogue across diverse voices, there will be a lack of freedom for the individual. And our Founders found that the individual conscience and reason was the best way to formulate the "standards" of government.
The culture wars we have today are based on universality, which the Founders believed, or exclusivisity, which the Puritans believed. These ideologies could not be further from each other. But, exclusivist claims to truth do not allow freedom of conscience, freedom of discourse, or reasonable choice.
We are a people, but a diverse people who do not adhere to any particular conviction about religion. We are based upon a rational choice ideology, and not a "determinsitic God" of the Calvinist sort.
In today's America there is a battle for "truth", which is "real history". This battle is not fought just within our borders, but in the wider world, as it affects the world at large.
There are some that believe that our nation's founding was to promote a Christian ideology. What transpires when this thinking is allowed without challenge, is a type of fundamentalism in application of "authorial sources", whether that be scripture or Church tradition/authorities. Who decides what is to be "real reality", i.e. power in the political realm.
I believe our Founding Fathers were theistic rationalists. They understood the implications of allowing a Church tradition (that includes scriptural traditions) to play out politically. It ends in war over whose interpretation, whose "right" is to be defended, and where will that play out in the reality of others lives who don't believe as the "ruling party". They protected us from this situation by the "Establishment Clause".
Conservative Christians have been concerned over the country's "moral demise" and have entered the public square to influence legislatures to implement their form of "truth". The "Moral Majority" was born and social activism was birthed in the pulpits of many churches. The evanlgelicals were known to have the traditonal values and commitments to the "family, pro-life, and anti-gay" movements. These positions played out politically in lobbying, petitioning, protesting, and appealing. If one did not adhere to these standards, then Christian faith was doubtful.
The Christian Church became political in every aspect, as their view was "total commitment" to Christian values. "Toltal commitment" to Christian values broke the wall between separation of Church and State, re-wrote history, and alienated those whose political views might differ.
I have been reading the writings of our Founding Fathers and find their insight profound. These men were not "Bible believing" Christians, but Deists, theistic rationalist, unitarians, etc. They valued freedom of conscience, when it pertained to religious matters. And they found that tyranny was often the result of combining religion and politics.
Whenever ideology does not allow open dialogue across diverse voices, there will be a lack of freedom for the individual. And our Founders found that the individual conscience and reason was the best way to formulate the "standards" of government.
The culture wars we have today are based on universality, which the Founders believed, or exclusivisity, which the Puritans believed. These ideologies could not be further from each other. But, exclusivist claims to truth do not allow freedom of conscience, freedom of discourse, or reasonable choice.
We are a people, but a diverse people who do not adhere to any particular conviction about religion. We are based upon a rational choice ideology, and not a "determinsitic God" of the Calvinist sort.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Piracy and Human Rights
Lately, there has been much discussion about piracy. The threat that is posed toward Americans, who are seeking to provide humanitarian aid poses a threat to 'freedom" and "human rights".
I was glad to hear that Sec. Clinton was going to take measures against such people. These people pose a threat to all of us, if left unchecked. Even though some have sought 'rights" for these pirates in the name of "humanity", it is obvious that they could care less about anyone else's right to their "freedom".
Humans like to control, as this gives us a sense of power. Control is not a bad thing, as without it, we cannot be moral agents, nor can we be self-governing. But, whenever control intrudes into another's territory, then we have hindered "freedom and justice" for the other. This is what our Founding Fathers desired for everyone, equal opportunity, fairness, and equal treatment. There is no sense of "peace' without the "rule of law".
Without the rule of law, we are only animals, not human. Human means that we respect the other's rights of difference. Without difference, there is not freedom.
I was glad to hear that Sec. Clinton was going to take measures against such people. These people pose a threat to all of us, if left unchecked. Even though some have sought 'rights" for these pirates in the name of "humanity", it is obvious that they could care less about anyone else's right to their "freedom".
Humans like to control, as this gives us a sense of power. Control is not a bad thing, as without it, we cannot be moral agents, nor can we be self-governing. But, whenever control intrudes into another's territory, then we have hindered "freedom and justice" for the other. This is what our Founding Fathers desired for everyone, equal opportunity, fairness, and equal treatment. There is no sense of "peace' without the "rule of law".
Without the rule of law, we are only animals, not human. Human means that we respect the other's rights of difference. Without difference, there is not freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
