All of us live in the "real" world. What do I mean by this? We exist within contexts of national and personal realities that define who we are. These realities are defined by the social structures of family, community of faith, and nation. These structures bring order to our lives. All humans need these frames of reference for identity and meaning to their lives.
Many in our world do not have these meaning-making structures, due to dysfunction in the family, community of faith on the personal level or war on the national level...
Our form of government, in its balance of power, as well as its representation, is most reflective of "natural revelation". The balance of power represents the need for parties to submit to one another at an international level, while the representative aspects of our government represents the proper balance of power between the "leader and follower" relationship. Domination of another (individual or country) or subversion of resources for profit are the proper limits to individuals and governments. An "ordered" and "proper" government should be limited if it is to respect proper boundaries around others... This breeds a proper attitude toward others (inidividual and national) that builds trust, which is of major importance in diplomatic efforts.
As Americans, we need to understand that individuality, "the self" is not understood within other contexts, as clearly, as it is within our borders. Western Europe still have the seeds of "tradition" that maintain certain cultural behaviors that have long been lost on America's soil. While this is so, we should affirm the uniqueness of American identity of the individual and their pursuit of "happiness", while disaffirming American consumerism. Individual gifting should not be used to subvert or dominate another's. And when these giftings collide or are at variance in "vision", there needs to be a formulation of addressing the "differences", without disaffirming the values and goals of each individual. This is based on "social contract". American values of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are unique identifying factors and should be promoted universally.
Therefore, the Govermental structure of America affirms the proper order and structure for human flourishing, while America's affirmation of the individual "self" is also a proper value to affirm in "social contract".
Friday, September 5, 2008
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Obama, Foreign Policy, and Trust
I do like to trust people, but find it hard in this day and age. Last night's speech by Guilliani gave me food for thought concerning Obama's ability to meet presidential standards....in foreign policy. Guilliani said when Obama was asked about Russian invasion of Georgia, he said he'd appeal to the U.N. Russia has veto power in the U.N. Did Obama not know this?
While in D.C. this past year, we went to hear John Bolton at the American Enterprise Institute. No matter what you might think about Bolton, he does have foreign policy experience. He stated that there was no balance of power for the U.N. nor any power over non-profits (I'm probably summerizing him)...This is concerning for me, too. Because of the globalized market, many may take advantage of the protections to non-profits. Business interests disguised as charities is probably not new....
Based on what I learned from Bolton, I have two concerns and they play across both canidates. For Obama, his lack of expertise in foreign policy in a globalized world disconcerts me, especially when he wants to appeal to an outside authrity that has no "accountability" and is itself, at times, in disarray. Even while this is so, the Republicans have protected business interests at the costs of the American people, at times. And during the RNC there were many NPOs that were represented on their convention's stage...
So, I tend to lean toward McCain because I believe that until there is a balance of power in the UN that American freedoms are too precious to "give up" to an outside authority, who has its own interests...
While in D.C. this past year, we went to hear John Bolton at the American Enterprise Institute. No matter what you might think about Bolton, he does have foreign policy experience. He stated that there was no balance of power for the U.N. nor any power over non-profits (I'm probably summerizing him)...This is concerning for me, too. Because of the globalized market, many may take advantage of the protections to non-profits. Business interests disguised as charities is probably not new....
Based on what I learned from Bolton, I have two concerns and they play across both canidates. For Obama, his lack of expertise in foreign policy in a globalized world disconcerts me, especially when he wants to appeal to an outside authrity that has no "accountability" and is itself, at times, in disarray. Even while this is so, the Republicans have protected business interests at the costs of the American people, at times. And during the RNC there were many NPOs that were represented on their convention's stage...
So, I tend to lean toward McCain because I believe that until there is a balance of power in the UN that American freedoms are too precious to "give up" to an outside authority, who has its own interests...
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Next in Politics: A Back-Handed Marxism
Isn't it interesting that some in the media are trying to undermine the Republican nominee for VP.? Most of the media is known for its liberal bias, and, yet, they are condemning Palin for being a working mother....How will she have the time? Shouldn't she be "at home" with the kids? ETC.
Where are the "liberalized" women in the Democratic party that supports her "choice"? Or is the media holding her to a "standardized standard" of conservatism? Since she is a conservative, the reasoning goes, then certain behavior is expected. And I thought this was the land of the free and the home of the brave. The country is becoming more and more the land of the "politicized" and the home of the cowardly, as critical thinking is no more taught in our schools, nor allowed in our culture. Everything has to be "politically correct". This is pablum for the American people.
It is reported that the next attack on Palin will be to paint her a "trailor trash". Some are calling for a paternity test on her Down's Syndrome child. I thought that liberals were for class equality. I call foul. What about you?
Where are the "liberalized" women in the Democratic party that supports her "choice"? Or is the media holding her to a "standardized standard" of conservatism? Since she is a conservative, the reasoning goes, then certain behavior is expected. And I thought this was the land of the free and the home of the brave. The country is becoming more and more the land of the "politicized" and the home of the cowardly, as critical thinking is no more taught in our schools, nor allowed in our culture. Everything has to be "politically correct". This is pablum for the American people.
It is reported that the next attack on Palin will be to paint her a "trailor trash". Some are calling for a paternity test on her Down's Syndrome child. I thought that liberals were for class equality. I call foul. What about you?
Philosophy and Fact
Is the philosophy disconnected from fact? NO!!!! Why would I say this so emphatically?
Take, for instance, a fact: a teen-aged girl finds herself pregnant. What does philosophy have to do with this fact? Philosophy defines what one's "worldview" is and how one will determine how to respond to this fact.
For instance:
A Christian fundamentalist would disdain her for not having self control and not practicing abstinence. They might even shun her. She needs, after all, to repent.
An atheistic scientist would determine whether the baby would have a handicap, if not, decide where to place the baby for the best benefit to society. If the baby is determined to be handicapped, then abortion would be mandated or, perhaps, the baby would be useful for scientifc experimentation for future generations.
A behaviorial psychologist would determine what discipline would benefit the girl most in building habits that would help her build self-control.
A fundamentalist Islamic would stone her!
A humanist would love her!
What would you do?
Take, for instance, a fact: a teen-aged girl finds herself pregnant. What does philosophy have to do with this fact? Philosophy defines what one's "worldview" is and how one will determine how to respond to this fact.
For instance:
A Christian fundamentalist would disdain her for not having self control and not practicing abstinence. They might even shun her. She needs, after all, to repent.
An atheistic scientist would determine whether the baby would have a handicap, if not, decide where to place the baby for the best benefit to society. If the baby is determined to be handicapped, then abortion would be mandated or, perhaps, the baby would be useful for scientifc experimentation for future generations.
A behaviorial psychologist would determine what discipline would benefit the girl most in building habits that would help her build self-control.
A fundamentalist Islamic would stone her!
A humanist would love her!
What would you do?
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
The Republican National Convention
I was proud of Fred Thompson's speech, but most proud of Joe Libermann's. He was the 2000 Democratic VP nominee and has become an Independent. He called for American unity and for his past political affiliates to band together to elect someone with proven character in Washington politics. He identified this person as McCain.
A lot of the RNC was about the military. Many Christians believe that the military cannot be identified with Christian faith, because of a conflict of interest. I do not believe that this is so, because, Christians all believe in human rights as a fundamental right. That fundamental right cannot be protected unless it is protected by advancing the cause of freedom from a tyrannical government. Good government is protected by the principle of the balance of power and the police force. The balance of power in our branches of government and the police force protect our country from within, while the military protects from without. Surely, we would not do away with the police force....
America has also stood for the individual's freedom to choose the way he practices his faith. Faith and how that plays out in one's convictions in life is what our government protects. Although Obama promises "justice" , and many believe this is the government's "duty", what then is the Church's duty, since governmental "justice" will be limiting the freedom in which Christian "justice" can be defined and expressed....
A lot of the RNC was about the military. Many Christians believe that the military cannot be identified with Christian faith, because of a conflict of interest. I do not believe that this is so, because, Christians all believe in human rights as a fundamental right. That fundamental right cannot be protected unless it is protected by advancing the cause of freedom from a tyrannical government. Good government is protected by the principle of the balance of power and the police force. The balance of power in our branches of government and the police force protect our country from within, while the military protects from without. Surely, we would not do away with the police force....
America has also stood for the individual's freedom to choose the way he practices his faith. Faith and how that plays out in one's convictions in life is what our government protects. Although Obama promises "justice" , and many believe this is the government's "duty", what then is the Church's duty, since governmental "justice" will be limiting the freedom in which Christian "justice" can be defined and expressed....
What Next in Politics?
I couldn't believe it. The Democrats had finally found some "dirt" on Palin and she is responsible (because we are our brother's keeper!). Her husband was arrested for a DUI TWENTY YEARS AGO!!! AND, her teen-aged daughter is pregnant!!!! NOT ONLY THAT, BUT, SHE, HERSELF was fined ONCE for fishing WITHOUT A LICENSE!!!! HOW COULD WE PUT SUCH A PERSON IN THE VICE PRESIDENT'S POSITION?????
While the Democrats attack Palin on such things, Obama, has affiliations with radicals that stand against American values, as a whole....But, Obama has dodged these "bullets" with the help of his rhetoric and his promises.
Character assassination is what politics is about these days, as politicians want to cloudy the waters by personal attacks, while making promises that they know will be fulfilled, ultimately, by the whole "color" of Congress. No Kings have we! Nor Saints!
We'll have to settle for a human, I guess!
While the Democrats attack Palin on such things, Obama, has affiliations with radicals that stand against American values, as a whole....But, Obama has dodged these "bullets" with the help of his rhetoric and his promises.
Character assassination is what politics is about these days, as politicians want to cloudy the waters by personal attacks, while making promises that they know will be fulfilled, ultimately, by the whole "color" of Congress. No Kings have we! Nor Saints!
We'll have to settle for a human, I guess!
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
America, Republicans, Democrats and Values
Americans love diversity, but not complexity. This is my theory on why we only have a two party system. We value freedom so much that we do not investigate what we really believe. But, our freedoms are only ours because there have been those who have investigated the complexity of the issues and sought to bring about a system that most benefitted and represented the many. Our two party system which represents ALL of us, I think should divide into several different parties, instead of remaining a two party system, then we Americans that care, can be informed of a number of different ways in which to view different issues. Then, mores of us can be involved in our representative government and we can continue to do what was done in the past, but with more awareness of the complexity of the issues than our Founding Fathers ever comprehended.
Americans love their freedom to do what we deem "fit" and don't want to be bothered by things outside our scope of "life". We value freedom, but are not willing to "pay the cost for it". Some of the cost to us recently is because of a two party system. While a two party system is much easier to evaluate , it limits our "education" in governmental concerns.
Last night, while watching the Democratic National Convention, it was more and more obvious to me the distinctions between the two parties. The Republicans, while valuing the free market system, most value the freedom of the individual in pursuing their goals and dreams by hard work, ingenuity, and innovation. These values have brought about what we most enjoy as Americans, economic freedom; liberty.
But, while this freedom of economics is an ultimate for American values, the Democrats prey on on the downside to that value; man's innate coveteousness and promise economic freedom to all, irregardless of education, work, ingenuity, or innovation. Democrats believe that we should be socially accountable because we do not all have equal opportunity. This social accountability in economics feeds into government's purpose in provision for the needy. While many in our world and some in our nation do not have enough economic freedom, what should guide the values of Americans in these two diverse views?
While we are individuals made in God's image and must take our own responsibility before God and others in how we choose to live our life, we are also called to care about others. The difficulty lies in how do we "care about the needs" in our nation/world. The Republican chooses to leave it to personal choice, while the Democrats want the government to take the responsibility for the needs of the needy. There is a difficulty with both views.
While one leaves the door open to crass capitalism, ignoring the needy's needs, the other oppresses the market, where there is no "cream on the top" to be given to the poor. A free market system is necessary for the flourishing of our economy. And the flourishing of the eoconmy is necessary for there to be enough profit for the individuals who have benefitted to provide for the needs of the needy, through charitable giving.
Again, we are individually accountable in how we are stewards of our resources. Both Democrats and Republicans prey on the coveteousness of our hearts. One does so in the name of justice for the poor, the other in seeking liberty of the market. Neither is wrong, unless the one seeking justice or liberty does so at the expense of the "other".
Americans love their freedom to do what we deem "fit" and don't want to be bothered by things outside our scope of "life". We value freedom, but are not willing to "pay the cost for it". Some of the cost to us recently is because of a two party system. While a two party system is much easier to evaluate , it limits our "education" in governmental concerns.
Last night, while watching the Democratic National Convention, it was more and more obvious to me the distinctions between the two parties. The Republicans, while valuing the free market system, most value the freedom of the individual in pursuing their goals and dreams by hard work, ingenuity, and innovation. These values have brought about what we most enjoy as Americans, economic freedom; liberty.
But, while this freedom of economics is an ultimate for American values, the Democrats prey on on the downside to that value; man's innate coveteousness and promise economic freedom to all, irregardless of education, work, ingenuity, or innovation. Democrats believe that we should be socially accountable because we do not all have equal opportunity. This social accountability in economics feeds into government's purpose in provision for the needy. While many in our world and some in our nation do not have enough economic freedom, what should guide the values of Americans in these two diverse views?
While we are individuals made in God's image and must take our own responsibility before God and others in how we choose to live our life, we are also called to care about others. The difficulty lies in how do we "care about the needs" in our nation/world. The Republican chooses to leave it to personal choice, while the Democrats want the government to take the responsibility for the needs of the needy. There is a difficulty with both views.
While one leaves the door open to crass capitalism, ignoring the needy's needs, the other oppresses the market, where there is no "cream on the top" to be given to the poor. A free market system is necessary for the flourishing of our economy. And the flourishing of the eoconmy is necessary for there to be enough profit for the individuals who have benefitted to provide for the needs of the needy, through charitable giving.
Again, we are individually accountable in how we are stewards of our resources. Both Democrats and Republicans prey on the coveteousness of our hearts. One does so in the name of justice for the poor, the other in seeking liberty of the market. Neither is wrong, unless the one seeking justice or liberty does so at the expense of the "other".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
