Yesterday's post was one of reflecting on the "world's problems, and the foundations of society. I admit that "rights" undermine the foundations of family, community and Church ( or any other organized structure). But, the question is not one of foundation but ultimate principle. What are the foundational principles that lead a free society? What are ultimate values that must be allowed if society is to remain free? These are questions Kindergarten can't teach you.
'Rights' do undermine "groups", because they are by definition individually identified in free societies. Without upholding civil liberties, then we are doomed to fulfill another's value system, which just might include slavery, patronage, or any other "out-dated" or discrimanatory system.
Perhaps, some would adhere to these systems as they help to create an ordered organizational structuring and functioning. But, at what costs? The "outcome" in business venures, is indeed profit. So, how does one do business and maintain a healthy stance toward those whose "place", "function" or "role" is necessary in producing that "profit"? Does one reward those who produce 'profit margins" and is there a "moral" standard to gauge the dollar value to an individual in a specific company? Will the workers be rewarded, as well as the CEO? At what costs do companies make their profit in human capital. Or should humans "be" capital? Justice should be the "by-word" when it comes to company assests. Reward should be based on risks, investments, time, training, and service.
America has become great because of private enterprise, creative innovation, and corporate co-operation. Individuals associate with what advances their interests, as well as the company's. Motivation does not have to be driven by an outside force, but by the passion of those committed to the vision of the company.
Other countries where companies are "used" or owned by the government do not have widespread economic prosperity, because government brings a cumbersome administration that inhibits "fine-tuning" in the specifics of a company . And it makes much room for unaccountable abuses of government "power" and wasted resources. Those who hold the reigns of control are the ones that are profited most, and when government advances its own interests, instead of the people's interest, incentive suffers and corruption abounds.
Kindergarten can't teach you what is of personal value or what one must commit to. The "shoulds" are not personal commitments of value, but are social guidelines for maintaining ethical business practices or social order under a limited government. This is what the law is and does. The law never should tell us the details of our personal lives.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
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"!
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"!
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Kindergarten Teaches You All You Need to Know...
I heard a good way to distinguish a liberal and a conservative today on the radio.
A conservative is one who believes in the Constitution and believes that the Bill of Rights limits government from intruding upon individual liberty. The Bill of Rights is descriptive.
The liberal, on the other hand, believes that although the Constitution limits government's intrusion upon individuals, it does not explain what the role of government should be. The "should" is the key. "Should" is a judgment of value, a moral imperative. And the judgment is prescriptive.
Should there be an "ought" or a "should"? And by what measure do we assess the prescription? If someone legislates that we all are to work 3/4ths of the year to provide for government's "necessities", then is this what the "should" should be? Or has government over-reached its bounds? Is the private sector to be responsible for the "moral"? If so, then how is this postulated? By non-profits? Are Americans still "rightful owners" of private property, or does government intrude upon that "right"?
Morals are taught in kindergarten. There, children learn to share, not take another's toy and to respect others. Government should not be teaching 'kindergarten", but unfortunately, parents and teachers are not teaching what they "should" and it ends up being a matter for government to "take care of" in addressing criminal behavior. Then, we all pay for what others have not taken care of.
Society will not be able to function if parents and teachers are not able to help undergird and undertake "training" children to understand that it is not right to take another's toy, or that it is inappropriate to talk while the teacher is talking. Respect is a necessary value for one to learn in kindergarten.
Conservatives believe in individual liberties, but these liberties are not absolute, when it comes to required behavior. Society demands attention to other's rights, as well as one's own. The required behavior are written in the laws that define our society. But, conservatives limit the other's rights, when it intrudes upon their own. This is responsible behavior and it demands responsible and respectful behavior from others.
The liberal must love when others intrude upon their rights, because it means that they are "needed" and that they have a "function" in society. The liberal needs to be needed. He is the eternal co-dependent. The liberal views the conservative as selfish and narcisstic, as he believes that the "moral imperative" is an "absolute". And the liberal's moral absolute intrudes upon the conservative's liberty bias.
The conservative is not necessarily driven by "evil" in protecting his values of liberty and conscience. The conservative just values his own independence too much to allow government to "tell" him in a prescriptive way "who, what, when and how".
(Perhaps, I have over-stated the liberal's position, as I consider myself a conservative. But, it seems to me an injustice and a moral failure to "demand responsibility from one side and allow irresponsibility on the other. That is my take, at least.)
A conservative is one who believes in the Constitution and believes that the Bill of Rights limits government from intruding upon individual liberty. The Bill of Rights is descriptive.
The liberal, on the other hand, believes that although the Constitution limits government's intrusion upon individuals, it does not explain what the role of government should be. The "should" is the key. "Should" is a judgment of value, a moral imperative. And the judgment is prescriptive.
Should there be an "ought" or a "should"? And by what measure do we assess the prescription? If someone legislates that we all are to work 3/4ths of the year to provide for government's "necessities", then is this what the "should" should be? Or has government over-reached its bounds? Is the private sector to be responsible for the "moral"? If so, then how is this postulated? By non-profits? Are Americans still "rightful owners" of private property, or does government intrude upon that "right"?
Morals are taught in kindergarten. There, children learn to share, not take another's toy and to respect others. Government should not be teaching 'kindergarten", but unfortunately, parents and teachers are not teaching what they "should" and it ends up being a matter for government to "take care of" in addressing criminal behavior. Then, we all pay for what others have not taken care of.
Society will not be able to function if parents and teachers are not able to help undergird and undertake "training" children to understand that it is not right to take another's toy, or that it is inappropriate to talk while the teacher is talking. Respect is a necessary value for one to learn in kindergarten.
Conservatives believe in individual liberties, but these liberties are not absolute, when it comes to required behavior. Society demands attention to other's rights, as well as one's own. The required behavior are written in the laws that define our society. But, conservatives limit the other's rights, when it intrudes upon their own. This is responsible behavior and it demands responsible and respectful behavior from others.
The liberal must love when others intrude upon their rights, because it means that they are "needed" and that they have a "function" in society. The liberal needs to be needed. He is the eternal co-dependent. The liberal views the conservative as selfish and narcisstic, as he believes that the "moral imperative" is an "absolute". And the liberal's moral absolute intrudes upon the conservative's liberty bias.
The conservative is not necessarily driven by "evil" in protecting his values of liberty and conscience. The conservative just values his own independence too much to allow government to "tell" him in a prescriptive way "who, what, when and how".
(Perhaps, I have over-stated the liberal's position, as I consider myself a conservative. But, it seems to me an injustice and a moral failure to "demand responsibility from one side and allow irresponsibility on the other. That is my take, at least.)
Monday, August 24, 2009
The Atom Bomb, Human Rights and Nation States
My husband had a conference in New Mexico this past week and "invited" me to go with him. I had never been to New Mexico, except for an overnight stay with our children on our across country trip many years ago.
As this was the week-end after our anniversary, my husband decided to give me the opportunity to experience this Southwestern State and celebrate our anniversary. It was a memorable experience, not just for "our celebration", but in what I learned.
On Saturday, after the conference was over, we drove through the mountains and attended an Indian art exhibition in Sante Fe. My husband wanted to continue up the mountains to Los Alamos and see where many physicists worked on the nuclear bomb during WWII.
I was not aware that there was a musuem in commemeration of these scientists, their work and the ongoing work of other scientists today. I had just gone through another musuem on the Holocost in downtown Albuquerque the previous week. The musuem was really about prejuidice and illustrated what inhumanity "looks like". These were human tragedies that scar the face of the world. And it gave me a "humanitarian context" to evaluate what I was viewing in our nation's history.
During this visit, I also had an opportunity to talk with a German, who was raised during WWII in Germany. He talked about how his uncles struggled with their resistance, and were unable to express their view of dissent. There was no freedom of expression, as they were to serve the Furher. I cringed to think how they must have struggled to maintain their dignity.
In the context of this visit, the "atom bomb" became a necessary evil . There was no other way, with the advancement of Hitler's army and his insane dependence on narcotics. He was not going to be stopped without some sort of force. His alliance with Russia and Italy made the war a world wide concern for "freedom" and "difference" itself.
Unfortunately, innocent lives were lost, but how many more would have been lost, if the Allied Forces had looked the other way and had not sought justice? Time had already been lost when America entered the war and with it, many countries had been conquered.
These scientists and their families were kept in isolation and worked frantically to discover nuclear power before Hilter did and used it to profit his own "selfish ambition". These scientists were awe struck at the results and some questioned what they had done.
What else could they have done or could we do?
We will continue to make the same mistakes, if we do not learn from the past. The question is what should we learn from the past? Are we to learn that people do not change? That people will assume power and subvert decency if justice, is not maintained?
Or should we learn that Hiroshima should never happen again? That humans should be "kind" to one another and understand difference? While these are "noble values", they cannot be the policy driving nations. Nations are to uphold justice for the law-abiding. Those who do not adhere to the 'rule of law' as it pertains to internatonal law, treaties between countries, are to be considered an "enemy". Enemies cannot be tolerated, when they undermine everyone's security. Of course, we do not want another nuclear explosion, and this is why we have tried to verify what countries have and how they plan to use it.
We cannot be naive. History has been replete with examples that without a "just government", where the "rule of law" upholds human rights, then we will see another Holocost, or worse. But, human rights cannot undermine national security, either.
America and the rest of the free world cannot be blind and short-sighted. We fight against those who do not allow liberty of conscience and do not value the freedom of the individual.
As this was the week-end after our anniversary, my husband decided to give me the opportunity to experience this Southwestern State and celebrate our anniversary. It was a memorable experience, not just for "our celebration", but in what I learned.
On Saturday, after the conference was over, we drove through the mountains and attended an Indian art exhibition in Sante Fe. My husband wanted to continue up the mountains to Los Alamos and see where many physicists worked on the nuclear bomb during WWII.
I was not aware that there was a musuem in commemeration of these scientists, their work and the ongoing work of other scientists today. I had just gone through another musuem on the Holocost in downtown Albuquerque the previous week. The musuem was really about prejuidice and illustrated what inhumanity "looks like". These were human tragedies that scar the face of the world. And it gave me a "humanitarian context" to evaluate what I was viewing in our nation's history.
During this visit, I also had an opportunity to talk with a German, who was raised during WWII in Germany. He talked about how his uncles struggled with their resistance, and were unable to express their view of dissent. There was no freedom of expression, as they were to serve the Furher. I cringed to think how they must have struggled to maintain their dignity.
In the context of this visit, the "atom bomb" became a necessary evil . There was no other way, with the advancement of Hitler's army and his insane dependence on narcotics. He was not going to be stopped without some sort of force. His alliance with Russia and Italy made the war a world wide concern for "freedom" and "difference" itself.
Unfortunately, innocent lives were lost, but how many more would have been lost, if the Allied Forces had looked the other way and had not sought justice? Time had already been lost when America entered the war and with it, many countries had been conquered.
These scientists and their families were kept in isolation and worked frantically to discover nuclear power before Hilter did and used it to profit his own "selfish ambition". These scientists were awe struck at the results and some questioned what they had done.
What else could they have done or could we do?
We will continue to make the same mistakes, if we do not learn from the past. The question is what should we learn from the past? Are we to learn that people do not change? That people will assume power and subvert decency if justice, is not maintained?
Or should we learn that Hiroshima should never happen again? That humans should be "kind" to one another and understand difference? While these are "noble values", they cannot be the policy driving nations. Nations are to uphold justice for the law-abiding. Those who do not adhere to the 'rule of law' as it pertains to internatonal law, treaties between countries, are to be considered an "enemy". Enemies cannot be tolerated, when they undermine everyone's security. Of course, we do not want another nuclear explosion, and this is why we have tried to verify what countries have and how they plan to use it.
We cannot be naive. History has been replete with examples that without a "just government", where the "rule of law" upholds human rights, then we will see another Holocost, or worse. But, human rights cannot undermine national security, either.
America and the rest of the free world cannot be blind and short-sighted. We fight against those who do not allow liberty of conscience and do not value the freedom of the individual.
Do You Hear?
Hearing takes time. The time to listen and weigh. Judgment is made according to how one assesses the "need". And needs are various and many.
What should be the ultimate concern and value of America? Some think that America should boil down their distinctiveness to "commonality". I think not.
Our distinction is what has made us 'great'. America's distinction is our freedom of conscience. And freedom of conscience has nothing to do with "common concern".
"Common concern" has to do with forming what is to be addressed. But, before anyone can address "common concern", there must be an awareness of what all the "concerns" are.
It seems to me that the political climate has not allowed "free exchange" of "concerns". Our leaders have not heard our voices, as we and they have assumed that our "concern" has no value.
I am heartened that many have made their voices known in the town hall meetings over the issue of healthcare. The anger is evidence that people are "concerned" and are aware of how their leaders are not hearing them.
Americans are concerned for their way of life and their country's very existence, as a distinct nation. But, leaders are only concerned for making sure that their "position" is protected by the "images" they "present".
Where is the Real leader, who takes to heart his contituency? Public servants are to serve the "public interest", at the public's bequest.
Our nation is facing the biggest challenge to remain solvant. We should not be talking about healthcare, when we cannot take care of our own. "Concern" for our own existence must be our focus, otherwise, we will not have any means to continue to further our democratic ideals abroad. And that would be the height of tragedy.
What should be the ultimate concern and value of America? Some think that America should boil down their distinctiveness to "commonality". I think not.
Our distinction is what has made us 'great'. America's distinction is our freedom of conscience. And freedom of conscience has nothing to do with "common concern".
"Common concern" has to do with forming what is to be addressed. But, before anyone can address "common concern", there must be an awareness of what all the "concerns" are.
It seems to me that the political climate has not allowed "free exchange" of "concerns". Our leaders have not heard our voices, as we and they have assumed that our "concern" has no value.
I am heartened that many have made their voices known in the town hall meetings over the issue of healthcare. The anger is evidence that people are "concerned" and are aware of how their leaders are not hearing them.
Americans are concerned for their way of life and their country's very existence, as a distinct nation. But, leaders are only concerned for making sure that their "position" is protected by the "images" they "present".
Where is the Real leader, who takes to heart his contituency? Public servants are to serve the "public interest", at the public's bequest.
Our nation is facing the biggest challenge to remain solvant. We should not be talking about healthcare, when we cannot take care of our own. "Concern" for our own existence must be our focus, otherwise, we will not have any means to continue to further our democratic ideals abroad. And that would be the height of tragedy.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Politicizing and Politicing
I have become a skeptic that anything happens apart from politics. This brings me to the point of questionig the present political situation and policies.
Does anyone believe that we are to be responsible citizens and accountable to the laws that rule our land? Is this what being a Christian is about? Or is being a Christian about allowing others to be irresponsible?
Are we to look the other way when there is dishonesty, hyposcrisy, and abuse of power in our leaders? Are we to be honored as citizens in a representative republic by being informed of the discussions on policy and our "voices" considered in the process?
I think that the whole healthcare concern is a passionate ideological grab for power over the American people. And it is being done in a dishonest and power driven way. This is not what our country should be about.
Our economy is suffering under "social concerns". Warren Buffet has warned that we are headed to be a "banana Republic" if we do not turn back this downturn. But, the economy has been demonized as "greed", "love of money" and self-centeredness. Is this "blanket statement", really true across the board? Are Americans greedy, money hungry, self-centered individuals?
We have seen our country's economy "politicized" and our very founding principles undermined for the "common good". We were founded on individual right of conscience. The conscience of religious freedom and public interest. But, the "public interest", is not what is now called the "common good", as we were never a "socialist republic".
Healthcare is being politicized on a "moral basis" of "taking care of the poor". While we have built our nation on hard work and reward, we see our country being "called into question". While there is no doubt that Wall Street and others have mis-used our system to the detriment of all, we cannot throw the "baby out with the bath water".
I am concerned for our country's future and hope that our leaders will listen, as well as govern. We are not a people that is used to submission at the costs of "voice".
Does anyone believe that we are to be responsible citizens and accountable to the laws that rule our land? Is this what being a Christian is about? Or is being a Christian about allowing others to be irresponsible?
Are we to look the other way when there is dishonesty, hyposcrisy, and abuse of power in our leaders? Are we to be honored as citizens in a representative republic by being informed of the discussions on policy and our "voices" considered in the process?
I think that the whole healthcare concern is a passionate ideological grab for power over the American people. And it is being done in a dishonest and power driven way. This is not what our country should be about.
Our economy is suffering under "social concerns". Warren Buffet has warned that we are headed to be a "banana Republic" if we do not turn back this downturn. But, the economy has been demonized as "greed", "love of money" and self-centeredness. Is this "blanket statement", really true across the board? Are Americans greedy, money hungry, self-centered individuals?
We have seen our country's economy "politicized" and our very founding principles undermined for the "common good". We were founded on individual right of conscience. The conscience of religious freedom and public interest. But, the "public interest", is not what is now called the "common good", as we were never a "socialist republic".
Healthcare is being politicized on a "moral basis" of "taking care of the poor". While we have built our nation on hard work and reward, we see our country being "called into question". While there is no doubt that Wall Street and others have mis-used our system to the detriment of all, we cannot throw the "baby out with the bath water".
I am concerned for our country's future and hope that our leaders will listen, as well as govern. We are not a people that is used to submission at the costs of "voice".
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
The Will, Freedom and Values
I am "just thinking" today, as I have no "scholarly wisdom" from scholars, but I am analyzing my own behavior and thinking about what drives it.
The will of man is the seat of choice, goals and determination. But, if the will is not "enlightened", it will be misguided or controlled by others or limited by oneself. The more information that is available to us at a given time or throughout our life is of value in "enlightening" ourselves against foolishness and superstition, as well as making us responsible citizens. This is one reason why Americans are to be informed of their representative's goals or commitments and their government's "process" of discussing the issues regarding legislation.
The individual's will chooses what is of ultimate value and commits to what is of most importance. No one can do this "work" for another, unless one wants to engage in "social engineering" that limits and manipulates information. Propaganda does "control", but it does not free, or "enlighten" the individual to fulfill his highest potential or help the individual to develop critical thinking skills. Critical thinking skills are important in determining goals and ultimate values and commitments.
Whenever one encounters situations, circumstances or "systems" that "attack" values that are of ultimate importance, then, one's will becomes engaged in a "battle" of sorts. The battle is for what is of ultimate concern for that individual. One cannot deny what he finds most important and will forsake other values, for his ultimate one.I have found that an ultimate value for me is liberty.
Liberty is of ultimate concern because without it, people cannot seek their own lives, but live for another's values or ultimate concerns. This is enslavement to another and it is something modern minds abhor. Freedom of choice is what we uphold in free societies because we value individuality. "Social concerns" become secondary to the individual, because the individual or the particular is the epitome of "truth". Human rights and our Bill of Rights are protective of the individual.
Some Christians would think that one's "ultimate concern" should be what is written within the text of scripture. The "ulitmate goal" is to "love God and love neighbor". But, can we love others when we deny our own values and "ultimate concerns"? Some would think that this is what love is and does. But, love does not demand of another that kind of sacrifice to "prove" love. One can only "do" and "commit" to what one "knows" to be of value. This is why becoming informed is of most importance, otherwise, one might think they are "doing good", when in actuality, they are "doing evil" by imposing their views on another.
These Christians believe that Scripture reveals what "God's will" is about "the Kingdom" and what we should desire in being "one". We, as individuals should "submit" to "corporate" identification, so that "God's Kingdom" will "come on earth. But where in the "oneness" is diversity? Something is lost without diversity. I stand on the side of diversity and individuality.
Why is "the Church" of more importance than the individual, himself/herself? "The Church" is only one means of "doing good" and is never the end, itself. Isn't the development of an individual child, student, or young adult of more importance than an institutional sturcture that "speaks for God"?
I don't think I am really any different than a "secular humanist" and some atheists, or agnostics, I have read. I believe in the individual's right of "free speech", "free thought", etc. I probably appear to be "rebellious" to the "faithful" because I resist and resent "groupism" that is found in Christian circles. And I probably don't "fit" well with those who are commited to "social responsibility", as the "liberal", because even as I am committed to individual freedom, I cannot be committed to that radical kind of liberty, if I am not committed to it for myself, as well.
So, my will resists "teams" that play without all players "on board", informed and engaged. This is the problem with the "healthcare program". And when we see people fighting for their right to be heard, we are seeing the downfall of one of our countries' greatest values, Liberty. Without liberty, there will be no justice.
The will of man is the seat of choice, goals and determination. But, if the will is not "enlightened", it will be misguided or controlled by others or limited by oneself. The more information that is available to us at a given time or throughout our life is of value in "enlightening" ourselves against foolishness and superstition, as well as making us responsible citizens. This is one reason why Americans are to be informed of their representative's goals or commitments and their government's "process" of discussing the issues regarding legislation.
The individual's will chooses what is of ultimate value and commits to what is of most importance. No one can do this "work" for another, unless one wants to engage in "social engineering" that limits and manipulates information. Propaganda does "control", but it does not free, or "enlighten" the individual to fulfill his highest potential or help the individual to develop critical thinking skills. Critical thinking skills are important in determining goals and ultimate values and commitments.
Whenever one encounters situations, circumstances or "systems" that "attack" values that are of ultimate importance, then, one's will becomes engaged in a "battle" of sorts. The battle is for what is of ultimate concern for that individual. One cannot deny what he finds most important and will forsake other values, for his ultimate one.I have found that an ultimate value for me is liberty.
Liberty is of ultimate concern because without it, people cannot seek their own lives, but live for another's values or ultimate concerns. This is enslavement to another and it is something modern minds abhor. Freedom of choice is what we uphold in free societies because we value individuality. "Social concerns" become secondary to the individual, because the individual or the particular is the epitome of "truth". Human rights and our Bill of Rights are protective of the individual.
Some Christians would think that one's "ultimate concern" should be what is written within the text of scripture. The "ulitmate goal" is to "love God and love neighbor". But, can we love others when we deny our own values and "ultimate concerns"? Some would think that this is what love is and does. But, love does not demand of another that kind of sacrifice to "prove" love. One can only "do" and "commit" to what one "knows" to be of value. This is why becoming informed is of most importance, otherwise, one might think they are "doing good", when in actuality, they are "doing evil" by imposing their views on another.
These Christians believe that Scripture reveals what "God's will" is about "the Kingdom" and what we should desire in being "one". We, as individuals should "submit" to "corporate" identification, so that "God's Kingdom" will "come on earth. But where in the "oneness" is diversity? Something is lost without diversity. I stand on the side of diversity and individuality.
Why is "the Church" of more importance than the individual, himself/herself? "The Church" is only one means of "doing good" and is never the end, itself. Isn't the development of an individual child, student, or young adult of more importance than an institutional sturcture that "speaks for God"?
I don't think I am really any different than a "secular humanist" and some atheists, or agnostics, I have read. I believe in the individual's right of "free speech", "free thought", etc. I probably appear to be "rebellious" to the "faithful" because I resist and resent "groupism" that is found in Christian circles. And I probably don't "fit" well with those who are commited to "social responsibility", as the "liberal", because even as I am committed to individual freedom, I cannot be committed to that radical kind of liberty, if I am not committed to it for myself, as well.
So, my will resists "teams" that play without all players "on board", informed and engaged. This is the problem with the "healthcare program". And when we see people fighting for their right to be heard, we are seeing the downfall of one of our countries' greatest values, Liberty. Without liberty, there will be no justice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
