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!

Intellectual Questions Breed Uncomfortable Challenges

One of the plays we saw this past week-end, "Spinoza on Trial", challenged the social norm of Judiasm and the Church. One had to question which was of greater value or significance, reason or revelation.

Christianity has its roots in Judiasm but has developed whole theological systems to "explain God". Judiasm is more of a "wisdom tradition". The Christian faith in certain circles is an exclusive faith. And it is the theological tradition that underwrites the exclusivity.

Judiasm is a tradition that is handed down through the generations and is an ethnic identity, whereas Christianity is not in some segments of Christiandom. Christianity is a "gentile religion" and was underwritten by "Paul", using Jesus as a means to that end.

Judiasm is a tradition that is grounded in the real world of everyday life, not in the "ideal" world of an after-life. Judiasm is a humanistic understanding of life, not a de-valuation of human life.

Spinoza had the liberty to "think outside the box" of his Judiasm in what was called a tolerant Amsterdam. Spinoza's parents had fled the Spanish Inquisition and the Jews were told by the Dutch to remain silent concerning their religion. (The Dutch are Reformed and Catholic in thier religious background. ) Although Spinoza was Jewish, Spinoza had made a Reformed friend and had fallen in love with a Catholic girl. How was he to "be himself" apart from sharing his thoughts about God?

Spinoza's "God" was a god based on mathmatical precision that underwrote his logic. Because his intellect was a strong force in his life, he couldn't help but "think out loud" concerning his faith. But, his faith was a challenge to the ruling authorities to his Jewish community and the Dutch civic authority.

Spinoza found himself betrayed by the Reformed friend, and eventually shunned by his Catholic girlfriend. His thinking and questioning of theism was at issue in his trial. His mentor was torn over whether to stand with his student and his brillant challenge to "tradition", or to stand with his traditional community. What was he to do? Was he to loose his place in his own society to defend Spinoza, and what then? What about his own life?

His mentor chose to stick by his own community, even though he had to agree that Spinoza's logic was equal to none, and one could not question the thoroughness of his "solution" about God.
Spinoza's view of "god" was monistic. God was nature, or Nature was God. People's essence is "who they are". God was no longer seen as an outside source of value, but "what is" was and is God.

The fatalistic mentality has it problems and its benefits. Those that adhere to such a view can relax, and refresh themselves on the knowledge that all that is, should be embraced. But, is this fatalism wise? Is there no moral judgment or value? And what of evil? Is evil seen as part of God, too? Certainly, this is what scriptures teach, as there is no dualistic universe. God is one, in nature. His was as monistic view of God. And monism falls in line with a scientific view of man. But, is man only his physicality?

The real world does not function on such a view. The reality is, there are "weeds" and these weeds need to be seen in our own garden, as well as the world. And the judgment on the weeds are what we are responsible for. Terrorists are alive and well. Crime exists, social evils prevail and one doesn't have to be a "rocket scientist" to know that our society is being destroyed from within. How do we "see" the world and its problems? What do we think is important to do about it? These are practical questions that impinge on what one chooses to do with one's life.

Judiasm would see the need of rectifying societies "ills" and to do so, begins with the family. The Catholic tradition also would concur with this evaluation. The family is the environment of formation for the child and unhealthy families breed unhealthy children and disturbed young adults.

All the intellectual questions in the world will not answer the child's need for his family. So, Spinoza's mentor was impressed with his mind, but he chose to stick with his community for the overall importance and value of "heritage". The mentor was challenged to challenge his tradition's social conventions. In this case, social conventions were a more important value to uphold. Spinoza was banned from his community and his mentor oversaw the judgment.

How was the mentor to encourage the young Spinoza to 'think" and continue to do so? Was Spinoza's work important and of value? Why, of why not? Did Spinoza's challenge to his community bring about their own struggle to understand or was there a prejuidice that was born our of 'self-defense'? One must think about these things.....

I Like "Positive Liberty"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Kindergarten Didn't Teach...

Kindergarten does teach the basic principles of respect and proper behavior, where it concerns my "rights" and another's, but it does not teach that even when one does what is appropriate, others may not behave appropriately. Welcome to the real world, where kindergartners "grow up" and recognize that the world is not a safe, secure, and predictable place. The world cannot be kissed and it will all "go away". No, the problems are much deeper than that.

Our society has given "rights" to minorities of every stripe; race, religion, ethnicity, class and gender. But, in giving our full approval of "rights", we have come to devalue some of the basic foundations of our society; the family, the community, and the church (as America's "tradition"). These were the foundations upon which any society is built. The foundations of our identity is grounded in these important 'communities".

The family is the child's first encounter with "life". In the family, he learns about trust, a basic necessity for any healthy personality. The child learns about the values the particular family holds and he internalizes parental "messages".

The community where one works and lives is another foundational association that has made an impact upon the maturing individual and maintains a sense of support for the adult. The community is where one comes to understand cultural values and political power.

The Church is the foundation of how one understands himself in the larger world, God's world. This world is not confined by the former, but is understood within a "frame". The "frame" is not absolute, but is valued for its function in bringing a bearing upon questions about life.

In America, the family is falling apart, and the Church seems to have no means of addressing the problem, as Christians are getting divorces at the same rate as those who are not affliated with Church.

The community is struggling with the outcomes of failed marriages, and damaged identity. The schools and teachers attempt to maintain a sense of "order" that used to be expected. Now, children and teens are rudderless. They have no guidance at home and little concern from other significant others. Communities throughout America struggle to address the budget crisis that is due to over-stretched budgets at home. The stress pours over the lines of "common decency" and sometimes end in an angry defiance in criminal behavior. Others respond to their crisis in addictive behaviors that undermine individual potential.

The Church does not know how to address social problems, as the standard line for conservatives is to "maintain the standard" (of biblical behavior). So lives go untouched because no one wants to admit their humanity. Fear drives the hypocrisy that maintains the religious facade, until it cannot be denied anymore. The real struggles of real human beings boils to the surface and somehow breaks free from the "standard" of scripture and cries out to be heard. And the Church is dumbfounded!

There is nothing new under the sun and the Church is a social organization, that can be so unhealthy and dysfunctional. Honesty is not forthcoming as one must maintain an image. The image that is imagined to make one "set apart" from others. There is a self-righteousnessness that smacks of pride and superiority in these camps. Not many want to affliate for too long with these, unless there is such a deep need to be accepted that the obvious abuses of relationship is overlooked.

Our nation is facing real crisis of gigantic proportions; economic, moral, social, and national. We cannot be duped to dicker over the finer points of lesser identities.

America must address her domestic problems. But, also She must address the problems she faces abroad. What do we do about Iran, N.Korea, Afghanastan, etc?

At a time of such crisis, we must not undermine our national securities, investigating the CIA. Where are the promises that we would let bygones, be bygones. Is it that distraction and blame on another adminstration is the "point"?

Our men in service are in dangerous territory and they do us 'service" because they believe in American freedoms and want to see these freedoms defended abroad. Are we to betray them by undermining a "force" for their protection?

I am concerned that power given to Obama to shut down the Internet, will be used subversively, in undermining one of the main protections of a "free society"....The Press! We cannot allow those in power to be unaccountable to the American people. The media must inform us, this is their duty, as well as their job. Their duty is to honor our Bill of Rights. We will not remain a free society without a free press. All dictators begin with propaganda, control of information. This would be tragic.

So, no one learns everything they need to know in Kindergarten. That it, if they want to live in the "real world"!