Free Speech and the State

Any limitation on free speech is wrong, because, historically, guess what, it's the most offensive free speech that has been the most important, the most valuable to moving society forward." - Arvin Vohra


This is an important issue for the State! It is only when we impose manner, or opinion into law, that things get oppressive. Parents, teachers, and community leaders impact children and young adults, which inevitably makes for a polite society or a crude and crass one!

The Movie, "The Source Code" and Issues of Bio-Ethics

This past week-end our son told us we might like the movie, "The Source Code". So, we went to see it Friday. It was a move about how the State used the new "brain science" and "quantum theory" to protect national security. The ethical question was one of where or when life is valued and for what purpose and who owns their brain or minds?! The story left one with unanswered questions about where to define the limits of science, and the State.

The science experiment was done with a knowledge of "parallel universes" in quanturm theory where 8 minutes of overlap make for new information about the past. A local terrorist attack on a Chicago metro had left the military community on "alert" to another terrorist threat in the center of the city, where many lives would be lost, unless they found the culprit of the 'metor explosion".

The soldier who'd lost half his body, but not all his brain was left in an incubator for the purpose of taking advantage of the 8 minutes to investigate who was responsible for the bombing of the metro. The experiment kept putting the soldier back into the same "past reality" so he could investigate more fully or differently to find the terrorist, in hopes that the terrorist would be kept from another attack with larger reprecussions.

The soldier did his duty, but under the controls of the State, until the person in charge of direct command started seeing the soldier as "a person", who had had traumatic experiences and thought it better to let him die in peace, as promised, rather than continue to use his brain for further experiments. Even though "the greater good" would grant using the brain of a disabled person in such a way, the ethical questions were obvious.

It reminded me of the Karen Quinlen (sp?) case where a brain dead girl continued to be hooked up to a respirator. The question in this case,  is "life" defined by "the brain" alone? What makes for human life? Surely, we in the West believe that all aspects of the person, the brain, the body, the mind, the personality, the family, the community, the nation, the WHOLE is responsible for fully functioning Personhood.

Leviathan, as Our New Reality?

Yesterday, I heard something on NPR that sent chills up my spine. It was presented like a public service announcement. But, the message was one of limiting the public's right under the 'social contract". It was Leviathan.

The announcer stated that "war" is caused by "self-interest", and since "self-interest" is the culprit of "war", man is to give up his rights to "government" under "social contract". That is, one must give up personal interests, so that the public's welfare will be met.

Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan under the premised that government was to be the arbitrator, determinor of the individual. The individual would be limited because government would become more centralized, therefore, supposedly understanding more of what "the public" needs.

Centralization was always of concern to the Founders and political theorists, because of the "balance and separation of powers". The limitation of government was of concern because government had abused power over the inidividual. Hobbe's "Leviathan" desired centralization because of the "state of nature". Power being a useful source of promoting peace, and security.

Hobbe's contention was the people in the 'state of nature" war for gain, security or reputation. It is only when a commonwealth is established that men are "domesticated" to act in ways of "peaceful co-existance". This is what colonization did for Western countries. Trade and commerce were easy means of bringing about domestication of certain societies. And today, it is continued by the West, some believe to pillage. But, as Hobbe's affirms, all are not created equal. So the separation and division of powers were not on "his plate". A Sovereign must rule, and the press be manipulated/controlled, so the people's natures will be controlled.

The Church becomes useful to tame the savages to "fear God", as a moral education, bringing about constitutional governments, so tribal societies can breed "independent persons" that have "comme of age". This was always the view of Catholicism. But, America was mainly a Protestant nation. Calvin was America's "theologian" par excellance.

Today, there is "war on all sides" in the areas of science (creation/evolution); in the areas of political theory (Church/State) amd in the area of man, himself, as to his nature and whether it can be trained, conditioned, reformed, or transformed. And each of these views of man have assumed biases about man and his abilities. These are philosophical and scientific wars that have to do with man, his environment and his ultimate end.

Man's Reason Is the Reason for Good Government

Good government is based on its limitations upon itself and others, so that the individual can have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The individual's reason alone is to be responsible for the values that are to be held most dear. And these values are formed within the contexts of the individual's life, not the tribe, or State. Both the State and the tribe err as to authority. The tribe errs on the mystical, religious, while the State errs on another's reasoned "program", "Production" or Purpose". The individual himself is the ultimate end, not the State, the community, the tribe, or society. The individual's life is his own.

Without good government that allows freedom of thought and freedom of action, then there is no development of reason. Reason is stymied, suppressed, or subverted. Students must not be spoon fed, but be given a good dose of academic freedom to pursue interests that might prove to be a "life calling". Otherwise, students are "formed" or "shaped" into whatever the propaganda delegates as the necessary "need" for/of the moment. The intellectual elites are those that have such agendas. And those so duped to follow mindlessly into the trap of alturism, are being sacrificial "lambs" on the altar of a liberal agenda.

Good government is like good leadership; less is better.

Neither Church or State

I believe that neither Church or State should have authority, or pre-eminence over the individual and his life choices.

Individuals need to have the liberty to find their own way in the world, and how they "fit". But, because the individual is not alone in the world, the State is necessary. Government should seek to order society so that the individual can have liberty to define his own life. Government creates the laws to uphold the rights of individual liberty, so that justice can be for "all". A just society can be no less.

Liberty must be the foremost value is one values a free society, where individuals are valued in their own right. Otherwise, some other value is more important, such as God or society, itself. This is when authoritarianism whether the State, or Spiritual "Elders" are Rulers and dictators over the individual conscience. These kinds of governments demand obedience of individual consciences to their brand or form of "virtue", whether it be for the poor, the destitute, or dis-enfranchised. And these social "concerns" are useful for the empowered class to "use" other individuals in sevitude to their 'agenda'.

All individuals will not find that their agenda will be implemented, but laws should protect the rights of others, so that Rulers will not become oppressors, in the name of their agenda. We are, after all, a Representative Republic.

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".

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.

Thomas Jefferson on the Economy and Good Government

I hope for any who might read this....Enjoy it as much as I did....

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. Thomas Jefferson

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world. Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. Thomas Jefferson
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. Thomas Jefferson

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Thomas Jefferson
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. Thomas Jefferson


Very Interesting Quote In light of the present financial crisis, it's interesting to read what Thomas Jefferson said in 1802: '

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'

Amen!

Science Is Religion's "Step-Child"?

Some believe that the world functions along separate lines of understanding, religion speaks for God, and science speaks to everything else. The problem of divorcing the two, is it leaves little room for religion and God. This is where the battle lines become fierce, as the exclusivist vent their fears by enforcing a "brittle" understanding of a text, or tradition. In Christian history, this is where fundamentalism was born. But, staunch stands do nothing to endear the Church in the public square.

Others would argue that "religion is science's step-child", because religion is just useful to serve other ends. Religion is to be a useful means to incorporate cooperation from the "feeble minded", who depend on religion. While dependence on religion may be true for identification, or cultural forms that help make the individual feel "at home", I think the attitude of "usefulness" is inappropriate and demeaning to others.

While I agree that tradition limits "free-thought", tradition is useful to serve the purposes of acculturation in a culture. Our American culture does not define itself on a primary religious tradition, as we believe that religion is a private matter. We affirm religious freedom and tolerance in our Bill of Rights and Constitution.

Just today, while talking with my hairdresser, who just became a deputy in the Episcopol Church, he informed me that the reason the Episcopol Church separated from the Anglican Church was because of the American Revolution. We were not be be subservient to a king, in our religion. This is a challenge today in the Anglican tradition, as well as other organized traditions. Where is authority and by what means are issues to be dicussed and decisions made?

Science has challenged our understanding of man and nature and we will never be finished with exploring all the avenues available in seeking undersanding of our physical world. The challenge for the religious, is to understand their faith within a scientific framework. Faith is not dependent on doctrine, or belief, or text, but on life itself. Therefore, science should not threaten the faithful, it should only challenge our minds in understanding any limitations on science. So, the call to the Church should be in ethics. Ethics brings pertinence to the Church and gives a voice in the public square.

Mark Goodacre's blog was entitled, "Interpretation, Revelation as a Critique of Empire" today. It is the age old "tradition" of sectarianism from empire....and power structures. "Revelation" like this is based on supernaturlistic understandings of faith. This had been my view, but I recognize it's naivete'.

Although systems thinking is dangerous, I have to uphold what I view to be more or most important in addressing my values. America's values are one's I uphold, as they protect human rights and freedoms, as a whole. And religious conviction is a limited view when it comes to a "worldview". Where one commits is important in and of itself, as it behooves us to think about the interface of "Chruch and State". These are issues that address many concerns in today's globalized market driven economy. So, those who are affliated with religious institutions need to recognize expediency is a value for the institution's self perservation. All of us have to be concerned about self-preservation, as this is common sense.

In Light of Divinity

In light of my last post, the State as an ultimate value, I argued for our protections under law. Ours is a free society that protects individual rights.

Many religious people believe that worship is due to divinity. The divine has been understood within many human forms, and humans have attempted to universalize their understanding of divinity. Government was one way to uphold "divine rights" of kings, as it was understood that leadership represented "god". While this form of government is legitimate, our form of governing is a unique enterprise of respresentation as all are divine images of God. I think this is a more correct view and it defends the rights of everyone before law. Law, has taken the place of "the king" in our democracy for equality, liberty and justice is underwritten by our laws.

The State as a Means and an Ultimate Value

The State in free societies is to protect individuals, and groups from undue intrusion into private spheres. Some do not believe that separation of powers between State and religion is a good thing. I disagree.

Thomas Jefferson made a distinction between behavior, which should be ruled by law, and belief, which is not. Behavior impacts another's life, while belief is a personal matter. Some in our country would argue that one's beliefs cannot be fully held without legislating these beliefs, because they underwrite what defines morality. While this is true of some beliefs, even these convictions must be open to discussion, where the "free market" determines what transpires "under law". This is a just society that takes into account all members convictions, tries them in the public square, and votes on them in free elections. The result are our represetatives, who legislate our laws, but must be collegial to other opinions. It is what civil discourse is all about. There should be no personal attacks.

Some in the past, such as the Puritans of old, believed that theirs was a "commonwealth" under God, as revealed in Scripture. While this view had some virtues, it also held many vices. Their understanding of revelation was within a text, which is a human construct. It was the Church who decided what was to be contained in the canon. The Puritans, though, understood the text and Church in purely spiritual terms. It was a supernaturalism that called for an absolute obedience to the "rules" constructed by the Church or in the text. Theirs was not a free society of conscience, but one of enforcement of "law and order". While there is value to "law and order", there was much done in the name of "law and order" that subverted God's natural design in humankind. Dogma became the "law of the land", where Puritans held trials convicting those who did not adhere to their understanding or interpretaion of revelation (god). The same happens in Islamic countries under Shairia law. This is not justice.

Because humans are social animals and desire to belong to some group for identification, social collegiality, etc., I believe many people "conformed" to the "tradition" of Puritanism, and some even psychologically responded to "revivalistic sermons" to their felt need. Many others have suffered under the repression and oppression of such types of communities. Their understanding was a group identification that held many duties over their congregants. I find this disturbing.

While humans are social animals, there is something unhealthy about adult super dependence on others for identity. There are some cultures that thrive on group identification, but not so, in America. While there is a need for the child and young person to develop within social contexts and adults continue to change in their roles and understanding of themselves, individuation is necessary for one's personal "fulfillment" or maturity. This is not valued in some societies. While America's freedoms have allowed the fullness of individuation, it has also hindered our values of communal fellowship. This is because our way of life is so stressed and structured around work. Job opportunities call for moving across the country and a dissolution of family responsibilities.

The modern State, as we find it, still upholds the values of the individual conscience, while maintaining "law and order" so that individuals can live their lives in relative peace. Our Founding Fathers understood natural rights, as a creation order and structuring, where man would flourish most effieciently. The freedom to "be" and "become" are the values that America values and should be one of our ultimate value for it breeds a repsect for others in their individuation. And respect is about justice and value of another's life.

The Church and The State

I have been thinking about the interface of Church and State, lately.

Today First Thing on the Square had a post on "The Real Problem With Bishops". In this entry, it was argued that Biden, Pelosi, and other Catholics in public office needed to represent the Catholic Church's stance on social issues. One bishop even took the stance of denying communion to politicians.

This intrigues me. On one hand, the Church wants public officials to represent Them in public office, excluding everyone else's conscience, while on the other hand, this one bishop felt that the political position itself was 'unholy" enough to deny communion.

I have also read where there is academic understaking of how the Jews/Judiasm identified themselves in ancient history.

Why all of this quadmire? Because the Church can't define itself in today's climate of globalization, and individuality.

While I can understand and agree that the Church on one hand must define what it means to be a part of the Church, how does that affect a member's participation in the "world"?

I think Niebuhr's model of the cultural interface, and the Quadralateral hold some promise of understanding and starting the dialogue across the spectrum of beliefs in the Church.

Niebuhr understood the call to the Church to be "in the world but not of it" in four ways....
The Christ IN Culture is the Scriptural part of the Quadralateral. This represents the Christ figure's role in the world. This challenge is not without understanding the Church's place within the Jewish Tradition and understanding its connection to other religious traditions.

The Christ OF Culture is Tradition's role, as far as understanding the values of the Church.

The Christ ABOVE Culture is Experience's role, in affirming that God is still above the world.

The Christ AGAINST Culture is Reason's role of critique in and of the Church.

While understanding that the Church must have a voice, the Church must alos allow difference to other voices. This means that there would be a stark difference between the Church and Islam in regards to "Law" and opennes to other traditions, understandings, etc. The Church is not called to oppress in the name of religion, nor to become a Kingdom of this World and its Systems and understandings of itself. The Church is not God, but an instrument of God.

The Church, as a political institution, should not forget its first mission and call to alleviate the suffering in the world. This first call is multi-dimensional.
Any Christian is called to this position,.
The individual's alleviation of suffering is found within the Church's doors, whether in counselling, charitable service, pastoral ministry.

The Church should also not forget it's call to permeate the public discourse so that its voice is heard loudly, boldly and clearly. These are those whose call is to the political or public service areas of mission and service. These are offices of public service.

In a free society, such as America, the Church should not just beome political in its understandings of itself. A political institution does not bring a redemptive message to those who have no hope. This mission is a domestic and foreign mission of charity, and human rights. Therefore, the Church and State should remain in separate spheres of influence, otherwise, those who disagree in regards to conscience, could not disagree, for fear of intimidation from the Church. The Church should always have an open ear to others.

The Church's message must be open to change, so that its message is accommodating to reason's challenges. Reason is the Church's friend, for reason is universal in scope and should be a mission of development in education.

The sacred and secular realms should understand themselves as opened before each other and influencing the other in growth and pertinence and relavance to society. The American Experiment is, after all, a unique one.