Why Religious Liberty Is Important to Individual Conscience

Our Founding Fathers understood that religion was an important dimension to liberty. Liberty values diversity, while tradition defines to unify. The Founders did not have one interpretation as to their religious understanding, when they founded our country. But, they did understand that an appeal to natural rights was necessary for the right to dissent. Natural rights were granted by "universal order", because God was the ordainer of such rights, not the government. Their "new experiment" was a "moral government" that protected and provided for liberty against power, position and might.

"Universal order" today, underwrites social Darwinism, the power and right of the "fittest". Today, Science defines to unify, as Tradition once did. But, the basis of such unity, structures society after power and not liberty, just as it did in pre-modernity.

Liberty of conscience in regards to religion was to protect against abuse of power in the Founder's eyes. And the structuring of "moral government" was a balance of power, not power itself. The law was the "ruler" and balancer of power.

Today, those that adhere to a politicized religious conscience can do so and should, but should not enforce their position upon those that "see" things differently. The sects are alive and well, which will continue to further bring alienation of such sects from the "Mother" Church Tradition or its Jewish root. But, each and every sect is an attempt at defining religious conviction, and defining commitment. Problems arise when these convictions and commitments impinge on another's right to liberty of conscience, opinion and commitment.

We must remember that whenever one defines, one also limits and judges. And yet, definitions are necessary for understanding and maintaining "order". Our Founders defined liberty according to the Constitution. The Constitution was to protect citizens from abuses of power. And our courts are the ones that will settle disputes of definitions.

The Difference Between Our Founding Revolution and Today's

America was founded to establish a different environment for human flourishing. This environment allowed for religious freedom, as well as self-interested "gold digging". There was to be no Divine Right of Kings, meaning that no one was above the law. All were created equal and were given the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Leaders were no different from "Peasants" in our country's estimation! We were equal AND free!

Today, it seems that leaders think that they must establish a "certain order" and/or outcome to maintain equality. This mind-set "flies in the face" of the self-governance that our Founders admired. The individual was a person in his own right. No authority, except the law was to have power over him, and that was only to limit license where it concerned another citizen.

Today, those with money and/or power tend to think that they can "bend the rules" to suit their purposes. And these have no sense of conscience where it concerns impinging upon another's boundary.

Although it is true that the Founding era allowed for slavery, it is also true that America fought for civil liberties, and "her people still do. Men are equal under the law, but are we as free?

Government was to be limited in the Founding era, as governemnt was to be "by the people and for the people". Government was no longer ruled by those who inherited the position but by those who "won the vote".

Today, those who "win the vote" must also win the pocketbooks. Those that run for office must have the means to establish their campaigns, and campaigns in our big county takes a lot of money. Does the influence of money in our politics corrupt? How can we limit such corruption?

Government was not to be a "society" itself, where leaders could have special priviledge behind its "walls". Government was to be not just representative, but accountable.

I wonder what the Founders would have thought if they had lived today? What would be their advice to us? And what could we learn from them?

What Is Happening in Our Country?

So many stories about the undermining of our liberties, that is boggles the mind.

In America, religious liberty meant that one was able to worship as one saw fit. Now, we hear that Shairia law wants to be affirmed in our Justice Department, as a valid expression of religious liberty. Laws that determine how one's faith is expressed is dangerous in fundamentalist's hands. History has borne out what has happend under Constantine when power, politics, policy and religion mix. It sounds like Islam is seeking a similar scenario in our country.

On the other side of madness are those who want condoms to be handed out in grammer school! Parents will not be able to "opt out" on this one, it is said. Where is the liberty for parent to determine how their children will hear, and understand sex and its expression?

Our Army was training a number of Muslims to fly aircraft and gave them sensitive information, only to wonder what happened, when they went AWOL! What were they doing and why did they try to escape? Why were we training these and giving them our secrets? Why would we trust these men? Will there be reprecussions? What will they be?

Then, we hear that the federal government will bring a lawsuit against the State of Arizona!!! What is going on? Doesn't the governor have a right to know what is going to happen before another nation? And don't citizens have more right in their own country than illegal immigrants? Where are the values of law and order? Is chaos the means of over-taking our government, as the former KGB agent warned back in the '80's?

Are the revolutionaries on the left intent on destroying America for a "greater good" or for restitution for past "sins" or present ones? Are the conservatives demanding that their religious view be affirmed at the expense of valid scholarship? Where is reason, then?

Why were the barges held "at bay" so that they could meet requirements of life-saving devices that MIGHT protect life, while oil gushes into the Gulf where life is actually being destroyed? Who and what were they thinking?

I have been concerned for our county, but these days seem to have no "rhyme or reason". The culture wars have become headless reactions to problems that need deep and thoughtful solutions.

Idealism or Realism?

All humans understand their "realities" within frames of reference(s). Individuals are understand thier "world" with philosophical or historical lenses, after they "come of age", as self-reflective individuals. Our psychology as humans is intent on creating ourselves within our "worlds" that provide for a "flourishing environment". An identity is where we "place our hat" in these philosophical and historical references.

Philosophy has been a way to understand the "ideals" in the human heart. Ideals are universals, while their historical contexts may make differences in how these universals are interpreted and these historical contexts are individually understood and embraced.

Religion is both historical and philosophical, as religion seeks to understand man's quest for significance in their understanding of "god". Religion has been useful to create an "ideal" in a "not so ideal world". And religions have formed from those that have represented certain "ideals" that are valued in a given society or by those that have represented a certain people, or cause.

The real world of history is born out in politics, power and economics. These are areas in which the political world "speaks" in society's institutions.

America's government doesn't acknowledge the institution of the Church, so much as allow for religious freedom in individual conscience. America was a Protestant Nation, after all. We were "nominalists" in our ideology.

Today, the "culture wars" are about the real issues of policy, which impact society's institutions and society at large. Religion becomes dangerous in such an environment, because instead of individual citizens making thier own determinations about what the "ideal" "should" be, we have "God" useful to justify a "one party system". And a "one party system" is not conducive for a free society, because the minority opinion becomes marginalized and demonized.

Without realizing what is happening, what is hoped for in fighting for God, becomes oppressive and tyrannical in the "name of God".

Outrage!

Today's world has left little to imagine when it comes to the evil that man is capable of, but the outrage I felt when I heard that a 13 story mosque was to be built upon the soil that captured American blood, was incommensurable! The mosque will not only be built upon the soil where American lost their lives, but also the mark of the 10 year anniversary, September 11, 2011!

How can any Muslim, no matter their stripe, think that building a sacred shrine to Allah on top of an American symbol of tragedy, be tolerable, much less acceptable? Is this the point? Is building such a shrine dedicated to Islam's God in the very place that symbolized to their society horrendous idolatry; the American capitalistic system? I just wonder.

How is it that those calling for humane treatment and tolerance can make excuses for such abuse and insensitivity toward our losses? Imagine if you had lost a loved one in a towering inferno that day, and all because of love for God!

I heard the analogy of Germans building a shrine at the site of Auschwitz, or the Japanese at the sit of Pearl Harbor. Neither the Germans or the Japanese would have considered such an action.

Toleration cannot be the medicine for such intolerant attitudes, ideology, and action. Anyone that thinks that there can be negotiation with those that have such beliefs is deluded.

Whenever there is belief that one has a "higher understanding" or "higher call", etc. then, one is bent toward destroying or "converting" those who are "lesser". These will not stop their behavior because of reason. In fact, the very fact of persecution can be a sanction to their "election". Their understanding of life is built upon faith. This is why faith is so dangerous.

Choices Are Necessary for Moral Development

There is out-rage on the radio and T.V. concerning Michele Obama's new obesity agenda. Some believe that government has "no right" to suggest or limit choices, even if they are detrimental to health. Others believe that unless government intervenes, then all of us will "pay the costs" of unwise choices of others. Which is more important?

Those that believe that government must intervene must have some understanding of their priorities. Michele's has chosen health issues. Every "wife-in-chief" has had some form of social concern that she has undertaken, but Michele's concern has become a "mandate" for all of us. Instead of a moral example, this administration seeks to limit personal decision making or punish or impugne those choices that are "not good for societal flourishing". Society comes first, not individual choice and value.

Just recently, it was discussed that those fast food resturants that give a "prize" to children in their "Happy Meals" should only put the prize in the healthy choice. Government is playing the parent in these situations. Is this the place of government?

Those that argue that without government intervention, then American obesity will rise, as it has over the last decade. Parents have seemed to be absent or uncaring of these values for their children. Health care costs will increase due to the diseases associated with obesity and the rest of society will suffer due to the costs to healthcare. Children have also suffered and will continue to suffer unless government intervenes.

Although I agree that we should be concerned about health and healthcare costs, why hasn't the social norm of American "thinness" made its impact on American choice and value? Would government intervention deter those that are determined to eat unhealthy food? Would the "black market" for unhealthy food arise if givernment regulates our choices? Should corporations be limited and not individuals?

It seems that corporations are in bed with the adminstration, so that the individual will have no re-course but "be forced" to co-operate with such intrusions into the American "way of life".
Is this a way for government to "own" all of us, because of government's "concern", especially in light of the fact that government must begin to think about the costs of healthcare, since it has implemented its healthcare "plan". Isn't a government healthcare plan a way for "leaders" to control more and more of our personal choices and values, as well as our money and where it goes? Where is liberty, then?

Isn't the real reason why healthcare and all other choices are being defined by laws, plans or take-overs by governmnet, really about power and control over our liberties? One by one we are loosing our liberty for "the common good", or for other "noble reasons" that are defined by those over us. No longer is there a "moral majority", but a devious elite aristocracy that limits information to the very people that it is supposed to be responsible to. Where is accountability of the governmen to the people? Now, it seems that the people are accountable to the government!

Government was intended to be self-governance, which means that the individual must determine what values he holds to be the most important for himself, within the boundaries of law. Without the liberty to choose what one values most, isn't government acting "immorally" by asserting their power and limiting human choice, which is the basis of morality itself?

Limiting choice will certainly enslave all of us, as those that believe that the "ends justifies the means" will rationalize anything to get their way. And they will be self satisfied in our suffering because is serves out what they deem as "equal justice" in the larger scale of things.

Social Construction and Social Identity

All cultures in the human and animal "kingdoms" seem to intuitively "know" that social structures form their young. These social influencing elements in the human realm are family, friends, and ethnic tribe.

Social construction is the process of internalizing the social norms, and values in a certain culture. These norms, and values help the young to frame their understanding of the world. Identity is not fully formed in such environments, because of the young's dependent stage of development. The young need the environment to further the internalization process.

In free societies, the family is not stingently defined by outside sources, other than the values of those entering into that commitment. But, religious cultures deem it necessary to define such structures in a uniform way.

The dissolution of such stringent structures has led to much debate about whether it has brought value to society in general. Have such "flexible norms" produced young that have no conscience or regard for society as a value? Has it led to the demise of "civil society" because the young tend to act out of their resistance to what they deem to be oppressive? Or has society "grown" in its understanding of the human need for flexible norms?

The young need nurture. This fact is not debated, but there does come a time when the young must outgrow and think for themselves what is important and of value. Does strict upbringing leave room for promoting intellectural growth? Or does it produce guilt, anxiety, and fear whenever such boundaries are ignored, dissolved, or re-defined? Where is the responsibility of the parent, and teacher/professor?

The child must develop beyond helpless dependence, not only in the physical areas of his life, but also his personal areas. This is the formation of forming the child in his own image and not to a source outside of himself. And when the young adult finds that he has formed and thought out his own values, then he will then be able to commit to a social group, not because of "felt need", but because of his own chosen values.