The Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court

I heard today that the Supreme Court will be considering how our Bill of Rights will support our individual liberties, and how the State and Nation will define the boundaries of these rights.

They are also considering the 2nd Amendment. The right to bear arms.

Religious freedom has been important in our nation's history. But, where do ethical violations over-ride religious freedom? Relgious freedom should never allow abuse of a citizen 'under law, as doing so would subvert justice. The individual is of primary importance, when it comes to institutions that prey upon individual liberties.

One wonders what the Supreme Court will decide. Will it be in favor of religious liberty in regards to Church, or individual protection? I think individual protection is of utmost importance to the furthering of our society's values of "the rule of law", because otherwise, the State supports the Church in circumventing one of the gurantees of the Constitution, religious conscience. Whatever the Court decides, it will set the standard for future "rights", whether these be defined by individual conscience or group freedom.

I think of the situation of the young Muslim, turned Christian, who situated herself with an evangelical family and did not want to go back to her family of origin for fear of reprisal. Her family appealed the Court's decision. What will result in similar cases? Will we allow Sharia to have protection over individual rights, just like the U. N. did on the universal human rights declaration?

It will be an interesting debate, which I hope will be covered by some of the news sources, as it is being debated. That would be interesting.

Troubling Questions and the CIA

The CIA protects American interests in bringing information to our governmant. These government employees do their work under risk of their lives. They do their work for the sake of our countrie's continued freedoms. Some have questions about which is of higher value; American security or human rights.

The CIA has used various means to obtain certain ends and have been sucessful in many cases. But, the question of how they have gone about their interrogation has caused some consternation over abuses of human rights. But, what of those who are not forthcoming with information that would undermine our freedom and cause great harm worldwide? What is the basis of discerning "justice", when certain individuals are dangerous for justice at large?

Suspected criminals have been given their 'miranda rights". We are a nation that believes that one is innocent until proven guilty. But, how are undercover operatives to be "found out", if not with another 'undercover operative"? The disadvantage to the CIA in getting information from those who do not value human life is troubling. Terrorists can go free, because the CIA is bound by "human rights". How is the CIA going to do their job? Will it require them to get more 'evidence' of criminal behavior? And how are they going to do this with the terrorists?

The Modern Age was an age of Reason. We based our determinations of "law and justice" on the Constitution, which was to protect our citizens. Today's post-modern and the multi-cultural "melieu" has muddied the waters and bred many questions regarding nation-states and their very existence.

Now, after determining that there was nothing further to "investigate", and that we would let "bygones be bygones", we are re-considering investigating these charges. I thought that once a determination was made "under law" then one could not be tried again. Can a person be re-tried for a trial already determined?

The Democrats are crying that we are a nation "defined by laws". I quake to think what lawyers will do to justice, if they want to...Lawyers have ways to manevuer around "common sense".

What will happen to those who would want to commit their lives to the CIA? Will they desire to commit to the government with no guarantee of governement protection? What will happen to those that are presently in the CIA? Will they look elsewhere for jobs and will those that stay be so cautious that they will become insignificant to our national security? Will the protection of American citizens and the values of liberty be dismissed because of the value of life over liberty?

These are the questions that face the 'think tanks", politicians, and the American people.

Religious Identity Re-identified

"There is no Jew or Greek" is something that American society affirms, as we are a "melting pot" of many nations. We are what a "moral vision" consists, where a "new humanity" has become a nation-state. Religious identity is tied up with certain "stories" and texts, which hinder a full embrace and hospitable temper toward difference, diversity and freedom.

"There is no Jew or Gentile" meaning that there is no favoritism that all are equal before the Law. Neopotism is forbidden in business dealings. We are a people, a free and representative Republic that holds that "all mean are created equal" with "certain inalienable rights". We hold to a higher view of man than religious traditions do. We are humanists because we hold that all individuals deserve an equal respect and dignity that is protected by government. No slavery allowed, nor special priviledge or "special insightful revelation". No, we are all created equal.

Religions do not believe that all are equal, as there are priests, witch doctors, Popes, teachers, and prophets. Although there are different functions or roles in organizations or job duties, we, the people understand our interedependece, whether through the demands of unions, or minority rights. America seeks to protect those who are less fortunate, while gifting those with special gifts with the freedom to do, and become all that they can become.

America believes that all men and women are deserving of freedom and justice. We do not discriminate on any basis. It is the law. We must give equal opportunity, as that is the law. And we are respecters of law, and not men (or women)!

Discrimination,Morality, Banking, and Business

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

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

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

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

Justice Is Not Just Social

Justice is defined by our courts as adhering to lawful standards of behavior. Justice is blind because justice is not partial. The law doesn't care about the specific details, it only defines boundaries and borders around the individual's property or person. It is only when the social has respected the individual boundaries that the social is of any moral or ethical value. Otherwise, it is an unjust community, organization or nation.

Justice is to be sought by all of us, as it limits evil, and protects society from further abuses of power. Individuals have to hold the social to account, and these are the ones who bring about social change.

Wouldn't it be the height of hyposcrisy and arrogance, if one teaches and believes in social justice and, yet, perverts justice by scapegoating an individual? This is why the evangelical message has no meaning, insofar as real justice. Real justice is about the individual and human rights, and good government, and lawful behavior.

Social conformity should only be done if there is an adherence to honesty, and integrity, and lawful behavior, which is demonstrated by a commitment to the value and worth of the individual. We must seek justice, especially in the face of evil.

Handicaps in Church

I don't know a lot about golf, although my family is "big" into the sport. But, I do know that people are allowed "handicaps", which consider limitations. I think this is reasonable and gracious in regards to understanding the human, which is what the Church should be about.

Handicaps could be anything that limits one, whether they be physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, or social. Handicaps should be accepted and not forbidden as something that must be "fixed", healed, corrected, or disciplined.

The Church is about justice, which has come to mean meeting a standard that none of us can attain. The law was created to protect, not condemn and judge. I find that handicaps stretch our ability to use the law rightfully. Understanding life as a journey of faith that has many bumps, as well as many personal fallabilities, is what grace is about. And grace is most of all what the Church should be about....

Legislation of Beauty

Many religious think that law will bring about the best, and the right, as it defines "right" and "wrong". I have no qualms about law defining right and wrong, but I do think that those who believe in Law should also understand what the purpose of the Law is, to maintain order and structure of a nation, and society at large and to protect the property of another.

Property rights are an important value to protect as it maintains distinction and affirms the value of difference. It also allows freedom of choice in how one deems to use the property, which is a higher moral order than a tribal commonwealth mentality.

While order and structure is important, how is beauty understood as just as important? And, yet, beauty does not have any value other than for itself alone. It has no meaning other than what is given to it by those who view it. It has no meaning other than to "entertain" (?). Is beauty's value diminished because it has no value, as in monetary or meaning making? This is the demise of the Western world and it is the demise of the materialist.

Beauty has value because it points beyond itself to something other. But, beauty's value is in the eyes of the beholder.

Wouldn't it be refreshing to look at the value of the individual as a creation of beauty that should be valued for thier own sake and not for a purpose or value of God...Then, self-expression of the individual would be allowed to flourish and the individual would be free to give of themselves oto the creation of beauty...

The Law and the "Gospel"?

I don't know about you, but when something is not settled with me in my thinking, I can't stop thinking about it, even in my sleep (which makes for a restless night (s)). Last night was such a night.

I had come to faith believing a gnostic "gospel"(otherworldly) of equality, justice and mercy, which is in effect, the fruit of love. The laws of our land are made with this standard. And since I have always felt "the little person", I was always taking up the cause of the "little guy" when I thought that justcie was not served. But, I never imagined myself in any place of authority, it was only in regards to the Law that was written on my heart.

Who are the little guys? The little guys are children, mothers, women, workers, minorities, and immigrants. Those who have no "voice" are the "causes of social justice". I can even think about it and it gets me upset. I guess I am "continually angry" as this is not a just world (so much for peace and goodwill to men!).

It is funny that I so berated the "cause of social justice" as that was not the "true gospel", but was in my naive years of "religion". This is why I have found myself resonating with the atheists. While I am still unsure about a "god", I am more and more sure about my desire to see all men as equal, which was the ideal of our founding Fathers. I guess this is why human rights have appealed to me and the issue that the U.N. will allow special "declarations" to the Islamic states under the name of religious freedom appalls me. Human rights means the every individual has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Islam does not allow women that right. And their judicial system is built upon a religious tradition that is legalistic in its implementation. Where Nazism was a political system that oppressed and was prejuidiced and brought about horrendous crimes against humanity, Islam is a religious one. America's cause to see freedom come to all nations, I think is a noble one, but how do we persuade those in power that freedom is good, when it would usurp their all-knowing, all-powerful position and allow others to have a "voice"? I don't know, but the whole subject intrigues me.

There has been much on the news and the blogs about the "shoe throwing incidence". My intitial response was not to look at the position of the President, as an "authority", but to look at the context. People of power must always understand the context in which they are speaking, just as our Secretary of State does when she travels and meets with dignitaries. The customs and social norms are important to affirm so that communication can remain open or be opened and there is no offense.

Conservative/fundamentalist Christians only see a separation of powers where if there is no submission to the "authority" then there is a lack of respect for God, as an authority. This is nothing other than cultish thinking. Justice is not sought, but a submissive attitude no matter the costs is required. This culture breeds inequality, as it accentuates differences of status. Of course, there will be times where roles are important to maintain, but as a whole, is one's attitude toward the "other" appropriate? That is my question and my concern. Our emotional health in feeling secure is based on social contract. It is only when we know that laws are respected that we know where we stand anad that we need not fear subversion, or control from those in "other positions, or roles'. When roles beomce our identity, then we feel threatened by those who question our authority and we desire to control, or manipulate others. When we feel we haven't been heard, "as an underdog", we seek justice and seeking justice is not wrong. It is right, because all men are created equal.

More and more I am seeing more clearly how I view Church and State. And I wonder if there will be anything left of my previous faith, when I am "through".

The Law's Intent

Ken Schenck has been writing on Romans lately. His last entry was on a "theology of Romans". If theology is understood in leadership terms, how does "that" look, according to Romans?

The Jews were to represent God to other nations. They exemplified what God was like, which illustrated his character. At least, this is the bilblical understanding. The Jews understood the "law" as that which perfected man, because the "law" represented "God". But, along comes Paul, who, as a Jew persecuted Christians stoning them because they did not "do" the requirements of the "law" (according to his understanding). Christians were following in Christ's footsteps in meeting the needs of others, and theologizing about Christ. Even though Paul was a Jew and educated as a leader (Greek) under Gamiel, he did not "do the works of the "law"", according to Paul's own self-judgment.

There are two ideas that run together concerning the understanding of the Law. One is a personal dimension of grace and mercy to others, which was understood and exemplified by Christ in his earthly life. The other side of the 'law is justice" where all were equally 'sold under sin" as Paul would term it. What does this mean?

Life is understood by the Christian as sacred because it is a gift, so all men are equal under the 'law's protection of justice". Social justice is what the law demands and human rights are to be protected and sought by all religions. This is the ethical demension to the law, which is not about morality, as defined by a text, culture, or moral model, so much as it is about treating others with respect and dignity.

Morality is about specific human behavior. One can be moral, but ethically perverse. That is, one can meet the legal demensions of the law requirements, without really giving equality under and by the law. Many times taking advantage of another is done by those who know better about the law's "ins and outs". The law can give a check to our human nature, in helping us to understand and question ourselves and motivations and at the same time protect the rights of those who aren't 'in the know". Whenever there is a flagrant disregard of the law, because of arrogance, self-satisfaction, self-indulgence, or selfishness there is also a payment that must be made by someone.

Just today it was reported that a Wal-Mart employee was trampled to death because shoppers trampled him underfoot in the name of a bargain. People were seeking after their own interests at the expense of this Wal-Mart employee. Did they intend to trample him? I'm sure not . All they had in mind was their own agenda, to get that bargain before another got it. Paul would say that these shoppers who had the "law" in its allowing freedom to shop, were not "doing the law" because they were focused on something other than self reflective moderation of life. The Gentiles did not have the law, and yet were obeying its requirements. In an honor/shame culture, this would either humble or infuriate the Jewish believer by accentuating their heart.

I think Paul was using the legal language of the Jew, who boasted in its "civility" to cause a humbling attitude toward those who did not have that civilizing law. It does behoove the American to understand what this might mean to us as a culture of indulgence. I do not believe nor think that sacrifice is the "gospel", but I do think that a self-reflective look at what America is about is needed. We are a great nation. But, do we boast in our greatness, and disregard another? Is our attempt at diplomacy only in "word" and not in deed? In seeking freedom for individuals, which is the 'ideal" how much do we question our pursuit of "ends" that justify means that are only self-interested goals for advancement? We became great becasue we believed in a government for and by the people, with representatives that showed a concern for the common good.

Paul's Romans is a good dose of medicine for us all, but especially in light of America's goal-oriented, market-driven, money-making, business-protective environment.