Culture, Tradition and Difference

In our multicultural world, it is unacceptable to be prejuidiced. So, we struggle to identify where our prejuidices are and when they raise their "ugly heads", we submerge them in a "sea of denial". Why don't we sift our prejuidices for "gems of reality" and underpinning of value(s)?

Whenever one has suffered at the hands of intolerance, there are two wrong possible responses. While both are submerged in a mass of pain and humiliation, one circumvents a full development of reason in the name of tolerance, while the other response becomes just as hostile and intolerant as ther perpetuators. Fear is the root of both. While the merciful want nothing to do with intolerance, the just want nothing to do with tolerance. There is no moderation and rationale of emotion.

Culture is the environment of a location or a group. The culture of prejuidice defines that culture by it boundaries created by the laws and rules that shape that culture. Prejuidice is not necessarily wrong in these instances, for it is only in definition that the group or culture can identify itself from another. Humanity, undefined, cannot be embraced for it is only in the specified that another understands and can embrace with knowledge. Knowledge is a necessary component of love.

While love does embrace, it at the same time does not have to condone all aspects of another's life. We can love and be prejuidiced. We can embrace and reject. The values that the individual holds represents the goals of his/her life. Bring these goals to the fore and allow the values to take care of themselves.

Human Expression, Creativity, and Human Rights

Human expression is a necessary part of being "human". Without the creativity of human expression ,"man" ceases to be unique. And the unique expression of the individual are granted by certain rights as "being human" and are given by nature's god.

Creativity is the person's "giftedness" and "individuality" being expressed and it is garunteed in our Bill of Rights, as freedoms that uphold a government that values the individual as uniquely created. The exceptionally creative are usually not accepted by the "rules", "laws" that govern a particular group. These groups are governed by the "elite" of that particular class (artists who have "won" respect, writers who have sold more books, scientists who have published more papers...).The "creative" do not fit inside a box of conformity and "niceness". In training animals, behavior modification and conditioning "form" the animal into a "shape". But, the difference in being "human" is the free expression of individuality, which expresses "god" in many forms (and not a shaping of conformity as religion does). Laws cannot legislate the human, only protect the freedoms that identify the "human".

Freedom of speech and freedom of press is a "right" garunteed by our government. These freedoms presuppose the individual's right to form his own opinion in a free and open society. Last night, while watching a news program, it was reported that John McCain was unable to publish an op ad piece in the N.Y. Times. The N. Y. Times sent it back to him asking him to revise his piece by stating the exact vision he has about the Iraqi war. Several things bother me about this....

John McCain is running for presidency and it is mandantory for the press to give him equal and fair coverage without stipulating what he may or may not publish. It is only when the people have free acess to a candidate's views and opinions that an informed decision can be made as to their vote. Only in a closed or totalitarian government is freedom of speech and the press circumvented. It is sometimes called propaganda (in religious terms it is called "indoctrination").

Secondly, the demand of the N.Y Times for McCain to give a time table for withdrawing troops is limiting and short sighted. John McCain cannot give the details as to a time scale for withdrawing from Iraqi. Anyone with experience in the complexities of foreign policy and politics would realize that hard and fast solutions are improbable, if not impossible. A lot of the" ideal vision" has to be revised when "new" information comes to the fore in regards to a changing situation, much less when negotiating with foreign governments and their "ideals". It is hard for me to believe with all the coverage of Obama's trips overseas (live coverage, if you will) that this is unfair. A while ago Russ Limbaugh was going to have to give "equal time" to the liberal opinion and it was all in the name of "fairness". No matter what your view of Limbaugh is, it is not freedom to demand "equal coverage" when he pays the bills for his programming.

Many conservative Christians assert that we have no "rights" and that we should trust God, as Sovereign in the "rule of the world". This cannot be unless one believes in a direct and absolute "cause" to the events that transpire. It is necessary in government, therefore, to seek to sift through many aspects concerning a situation and not understand events as direct causes of God. Men are the rulers of governments, not God. And it is not a uniformity as to religious "ideals", as to the shape of a free and humane society. It is all men who are responsible for that government, who are called to be informed and involved and not allow fate to express itself and call it "god".

There is no form in this world that is perfect, but there is a closer manifestation of humane governance. I believe that the American form is the best, for it affirms all humans as God's creations and grants them equal rights. Even the "creative", who have brought about social reformation in our laws have been granted freedom of expression. and there is no "creative" businessman who would diminish the freedom of our government in allowing him to pursue his own ends. This is the great experiment of American government and its affirmation of human expression, creativity and human rights.

Law, Power, and Ethics

This past week in a conference on "the Human Being", the introductory talk pointed out the crisis in our postmodern world of finding a universal understanding of how law, power and ethics interface. The question is not merely an academic one, but one profoundly, practical in our dangerous and fragmented world.

I understand some are forging the discussion around "tradition", as tradition is the arena of culture. Is the Eastern and Western split ever to be resolved? And can it be resolved by reference to tradition, where it is just a matter of a "way of life", language, text and understanding? If so, then, it presupposes that tradition's "social structures" are the necessary task to address.

While most would agree that this aspect of universiality is important, is it the "most important" or is it "a priori "to the reason of the individual, like we would find in a democracy? Equal justice under the law is what our democracy is about. Isn't our democracy what human rights is about? And wouldn't human rights affirm the individual and the individual's desire for freedom and justice within their own personal value system, as long as the value system was "lawful"? Is affirming personal values too expensive for the "sake of the common good" and traditional values? I don't believe this has been the case in many of the issues facing "mankind". Americans have seen and experienced the "crisis" of slavery, and women's rights. All of these "changes" have been "progressive" in "traditional terms". So, is there no "progress", but only a circularity of the rise and fall of empires and cultures based on undermining tradition's values and tradition's "god"?

Tradition's values are important to understand, as far as a culture's values, but, is affirming "freedom and justice" for the individual or group too costly for a culture? Does it innately undermine culture's very foundations? If so, on what foundation can we argue that culture is based? Is culture based on "god" or reason? If on "god", whose god? The transcendence of God presupposes agnosticism, which is an untenuable way of struturing or forming government. If culture is based on reason, then it is inevitably going to be conflictual in nature, for different cultures have different values. And these values are represented by the laws that define that culture. Is it "God" or "man" that should be the ultimate and define the laws of a particular culture?

The question will be answered differently depending on how one approaches the problem and what presuppositions one has and how one resolves the dilemmas. If one approaches the problem with "Law", there will never be "unity", for one will have to define what basis the law is known or understood and then how the law will be implemented, which is the domain of nation states, values, and ethics. And Law and Power can never be the resolution of the problem in ethics for it demeans the very process, in circumventing justice (this is why our "balance of power" was a brillant idea).

While ethics cannot be resolved through absolutized power or law, neither will we find a universalized ethic when it comes to values, because there will always be "conflict and disagreement" about the goals and purposes of value. Is human life more valuable than "god"? Is it justified to "take a life" in the name of "god" and if so, on what basis? Is human dignity a universal value?

These questions are not about academic question of law, power and ethics, but is the very substance of "world politics", nation states, cultural identity, and human rights of the individual. and groups....And our very democracy! How we understand and address them will determine the future of our globalized world.

What Spain May Mean

Thursday, my husband and I leave for Madrid. It is not just a pleasure trip, although it will surely be enjoyed! We are going to a science and religion conference. The subject is on Personhood. While many may not understand how personhood and the Church intersect, I believe it is the main challenge for the Church today in understanding faith.

It seems that the Church's beginning in Judiasm has been understood in such completely different ways, that it boggles one's mind to assess what really happened and why. But, a commitment to the Church calls for an understanding of some kind, which is my present pursuit.

In understanding Jesus' ministry, one has to asess who Jesus was, and how it was understood in that day, who Jesus ministered to and why, how Jesus related to Judiasm and what the implications are to the communities of faith, as well as understand the political context. Understanding Jesus in his context is only the beginning to understanding Christian faith. Then, one has to tackle Church history.

Church history begins with the Councils, which solidified the developing tradition. These councils must be put into the context of the Church's "power" at that time. Why were the decisions made that were made? What were the challenges to the Church at that time that were being addressed? And how did these decisions impact the Church's understanding of faith. But, the Church's history is not complete without understanding the Reformation and its impact on the Church.

One of the primary results of the Reformation was Scritpture being put into the "language of the people". Education was impacted by the development of the printing press and giving the individual access to the Scriptures. But, the result of individual interpretation was schism. How was the Church to understand itself when there were so many interpreters, each understanding the text differently? These experiential challenges in maintaining the "authority" of the Church were met with science's impact on reason.

Science and its impact on the Church cannot be undermined, as the Church had had pre-eminence in understanding the "world" and "life". But, now, science had challenged the Church's authority and its understanding of "man". Human sciences were now in the forefront of understaning man and his "world".

In understanding today's need of "authority", one must understand how man develops in reason. Man's reason is limited, but can lead to an understanding of faith. Man becomes the "study" of the Church in understanding how "God" has made man (universals) and how each individual is unique (particulars). The "study" of man crosses the disciplines of anthropology, biology, psychology, sociology, and theology. This is what we will encounter in Madrid and what it may mean....

Communitarianism

I found a web-site on Communitarianism that was fascinating.
While our nation's freedoms have granted the individual rights to pursue their own ends, the values of patriotism, community, service, honor and duty have fallen by the wayside. Communitarians seek to promote an interdependence of the individual and community. Nations only flourish when the individuals within that nation seek to serve their country. And since most individuals will not have the opportunity to serve at a national level, community service is encouraged.

Our nation's diversity is also valued by the Communitarian. Differences are not seen as threats, but as challenges. The differences of race, or ideas are not subverted or short-changed, but are met with an openness within law. The free exchange of ideas and immigration policy itself is met by the Communitarian as an affirmation of values for diverse ways of "seeing".

Even though I am "new" in my exposure to the Communitarian approach, I hope to inform myself more thoroughly of this social/political philosophy, as it lends itself to a "center" that I find more palatable than either conservative or liberal. I think it just may be something to commit to.

The Fourth of July, Freedom and Values

Today is America's Independence Day! What does American Independence mean to the average American? I'm not sure that many even give their freedom a second thought. Americans, for the most part, in my opinion, take their way of life for granted. But, when an antrocity happens, we band around the ideals of our country and remember why we are what we are.....FREE!

Our Founding Fathers understood that nature's God had granted the individual certain inalienable rights. These rights give us the freedoms that we value as Americans and are found in our Bill of Rights. Freedom to speak and publish our opinions gives the individual and groups the right to express openly and freely without fear of recourse from the government. Freedom of religion grants individuals the right to worship God according to their own consciences. Freedom of assembly means that we Americans can gather together to form societies that are free from government oversight. All of these freedoms assume individual responsibility.

Some freedoms are believed to go beyond the right of the individual and subvert a more stable union, such as the right to bear arms. But, in our free society, even the right to disagree on what right is "right" is encouraged. If our government assumes individual responsiblity then, what responsibilities should Americans have toward their government or society, in general? Are Americans becoming more irresponsible because of the freedoms we enjoy? Or are our freedoms breeding selfish individualism? Some believe so.

I would argue that our freedoms are not the main reason for our problems, but the break-down of the family. The family is the first community that the child is a member. The child is educated about many aspects of life within the family. If the family is consumed by material gains and stressed due to those goals, is it any wonder that the child enters adolescence without a rudder to steer his life? Every value that supports human flourishing and the government's order is taught upon the knees of the parents, from self- responsibly, citizenship, proper behavior, and attitudes toward life in general. The free society should reinforce those values in school and within local communities. And the Church should underwrite and support the family in those values.

Freedom, then is not the problem, but has been used to pursue unworthy goals at the expense of more important values.

Values of American Higher Education

Today while visiting with some friends here in D.C., we were discussing the ideals of our country; equality under the Law, liberty, opportunity, individualism, etc...And in the process we were reminded of what made our country great and what values were most important. Education is the means of defining and refining those values.

Unfortunately, because of the environment of innovation created upon the heels of the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution and the World Wars, American education became pragmatically oriented. Aesthetic values have not, as a whole, been a value of higher education, nor has education been pursued for its own ends. Education has been pursued predominately for a pragmatic purpose, a job. Science has flourished in such an environment, but at what cost?

Science, while giving Americans a more "convenient life", is utilitarian in "outcome". While we benefit from science's innovations, we must not loose sight of the true purpose of education.

Higher education should develop and enlarge the "world" of the individual. Education, in this sense, creates a better citizen, in understanding most impthe most important values to that individual, and tolerance toward others with different values. Tolerance of difference is the atmosphere of academic freedom and the liberties that we value most as Americans. The values our country has affirmed must be protected and valued for the sake of "the greater good" and for "the greater world".