I believe it is horrendously dangerous for people to go about their daily life without self-reflection. Why? Because without self-reflection one cannot ascertain the reasons why they do or believe as they do. And without a rationale, there really is no reason to choose one way above another in deciding a course of action, except for human social convention.
My personal reflections have come about over my responses, or should I say reactions to certain situations, I find myself in. If one cannot respond reasonably, then one's reaction is a give-away to "stakes" in the fight. And those stakes are stakes of identity, or wounds that must be healed.
One of the biggest challenges to me, is the issue of choice. Choice is necessary for indviduality, personal value and affirmation of one's ideals.
Children have need of safety and security because they are developing their identities. Without safe and secure environments, then, the child is left with anxiety about the dire neccessities in life and without hope to fulfill his personal identity.
Children grow, explore and develop their interests when adults support them, and even further their "discoveries". And interests that develop in childhood are interests that become passions in young adulthood. Passions lead to pursuits of life goals and education that end in a life given to that passion.
For the child, divorced families are challenged to meet the needs of safe and security, so he can explore and develop interests. These safety and security issues can be strongholds that deter the young adult from developing passions and pursuing goals later in life. And inevitably, an overly cautious, or overly reactive child can be the result of such an environment.
I have found that my own reactions and fear of being controlled has its roots grounded in my early childhood. When divorced children do not have any choice about the events that "control their lives", they feel helpless, insecure and unsafe. Thus, "God" enters in to "help" the child to defend themselves in an unsafe and insecure world. "God will work all things together", etc. etc. God's Providence is viewed as safety, security and assurance of "goodwill". But, these coping skills are not healthy past the point of childhood. "Self" is not developed when one has an unhealthy need for dependence.
"God" is used in place of seeking, pursuing, developing, and taking responsibility for oneself. And this taking responsibility is also a challenge for me, as I fear responsibility, because of the "perfectionism' of the adults in my life, as a child. Great anxiety transpires when I fear failure, so why tramp over that territory if there are so many pits one can "fall into"? Besides, no one 'needs" what I have to offer anyway? Who am I?
These messages are messages of self-hatred, and self-rejection. These messages were tempered by a religious coping skill. I believed that God loved me, personally. This brought me a sense of being valued, individually and specifically. But, my realization that no one is particularly special was not a new one, it was just put into a new frame. The new frame was one of a 'vast void' of human insignificance.
If humans have no innate significance, then the only way to significance is what one does. And what one does, breeds an atmosphere of competitive drive for success to be valued. It is the 'survival of the fittest" that define who gets on top. And the rest of humanity dries up under the sun of pointless absurdities that intrude upon their life with regular 'humiliations'.
The "survival of the fittest" leaves me with anxiety, because I have been "taught" that I was not "the fittest". This "view" has nothing to do with evolution, but it has a lot to do with my own self-concept.
So, what is the point? The point is that religion can de-value, as well as value "the human". And when religion intrudes upon the individual, determining and confining choice, then religion has ceased its value, because of its devaluation of the individual, as significance.
At the same time, when religion limits 'self-development' because of its zeal for absolute certainty about "God" who cannot be confined to our safe and rational 'solutions', then religion has stepped over and ignored the very purpose of its existence; Man.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Challenging Social Conventions
Social conventions are considered to be the "norm". And norms are the values a certain society holds. This week-end, my husband and I saw two plays that challenged two values in our society; appearance, and conventional ideas.
"Fat Pig" was a humorous jab at our society's value of "being fit". Being overweight, Helen had had numerous encounters of being the brunt of society's "convention". She coped with the ostericism by learning to "make fun of herself", and to be bluntly forthright about another's thoughts about her "fatness".
Helen had not had a chance at love, as she had been rejected before anyone took the time to know the person behind the "facade", until she met "Ben". The play ended with the sacrifice of Helen, on the altars of society's conventional wisdom; one cannot succeed with a fat wife!
The other play, "The Trial of Barach Spinoza" was a true rendition of a Jewish philosopher, who challenged the conventional wisdom of Judiasm, as well as the status quo in a Dutch Reformed Amersterdam in the 1600's.
Spinoza was painted as a radically committed person who was willing to "die" for his faith. But, his faith was not one of conventional wisdom, and his death would not be a physical, but social one.
Society, as an entity itself, maintains its conventions with rules that guard and guide the "faithful". Society has much to loose if it conventions do not maintain their power, as society would end in chaos and be destroyed. The "gatekeepers" of tradition are those that help to maintain these conventions.
The individual, as a person, is lost within these systems, if these systems are too constrictive.
Helen's "rebuke" was not a trial, like Spinoza's, but it was nevertherless, a painful realization that she was to be an outcast to a life of being loved and valued, in her own right.
Spinoza's freethought threatened the status quo. And the choice for Spinoza was inevitably a painful realization that he would not be the "choir boy" within his "Jewish tradition". But, being the "choir boy" was never Spinoza's goal in the first place. Spinoza's friend, who betrayed him to the "authorities", was seeking to be a "choir boy", at least at first. Spinoza's intellectual honesty and commitment to be "true to himself" was the threat to society's traditional view.
One has to ask whether the values that society affirms are values that are truly "righteous"? Or are these conventional values "self affirming rights" to discriminate against another? And if one discriminates, then is there a conscious choice about the reasons why one discriminates?
People, for the most part, are not self-reflective enough to consider whether the value of a human being is to be put above social convention. Social convention is "an easy way out" of an uncomfortable challenge to one's social values.
I haven't come to my conclusions about all the why's or why not's, but I will be thinking about it this week.
"Fat Pig" was a humorous jab at our society's value of "being fit". Being overweight, Helen had had numerous encounters of being the brunt of society's "convention". She coped with the ostericism by learning to "make fun of herself", and to be bluntly forthright about another's thoughts about her "fatness".
Helen had not had a chance at love, as she had been rejected before anyone took the time to know the person behind the "facade", until she met "Ben". The play ended with the sacrifice of Helen, on the altars of society's conventional wisdom; one cannot succeed with a fat wife!
The other play, "The Trial of Barach Spinoza" was a true rendition of a Jewish philosopher, who challenged the conventional wisdom of Judiasm, as well as the status quo in a Dutch Reformed Amersterdam in the 1600's.
Spinoza was painted as a radically committed person who was willing to "die" for his faith. But, his faith was not one of conventional wisdom, and his death would not be a physical, but social one.
Society, as an entity itself, maintains its conventions with rules that guard and guide the "faithful". Society has much to loose if it conventions do not maintain their power, as society would end in chaos and be destroyed. The "gatekeepers" of tradition are those that help to maintain these conventions.
The individual, as a person, is lost within these systems, if these systems are too constrictive.
Helen's "rebuke" was not a trial, like Spinoza's, but it was nevertherless, a painful realization that she was to be an outcast to a life of being loved and valued, in her own right.
Spinoza's freethought threatened the status quo. And the choice for Spinoza was inevitably a painful realization that he would not be the "choir boy" within his "Jewish tradition". But, being the "choir boy" was never Spinoza's goal in the first place. Spinoza's friend, who betrayed him to the "authorities", was seeking to be a "choir boy", at least at first. Spinoza's intellectual honesty and commitment to be "true to himself" was the threat to society's traditional view.
One has to ask whether the values that society affirms are values that are truly "righteous"? Or are these conventional values "self affirming rights" to discriminate against another? And if one discriminates, then is there a conscious choice about the reasons why one discriminates?
People, for the most part, are not self-reflective enough to consider whether the value of a human being is to be put above social convention. Social convention is "an easy way out" of an uncomfortable challenge to one's social values.
I haven't come to my conclusions about all the why's or why not's, but I will be thinking about it this week.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Revolution Should Not Be Our Stance
Our government is the highest form of government, I believe, because it leaves room for "the human". Other governments have agendas or ideologies that are placed before "the human". This is why I believe that revolution should not be the stance toward our government. We have laws and representatives that we can appeal to. And we have laws that protect our right to express our opinion, voice our concerns, and assemble with others to represent our "voice".
Revolutionaries revolutionize whenever "the human" is disregarded, disrespected, or dismissed. "The human" is when liberty rules over the people and the "rule of law' protects such liberty. Today, we have many problems because we don't appreciate why our Founding Fathers formed the government like they did. The balance of power was to protect against abuses of power. And the judiary branch was to remain independent from influence, while the legislature was to represent the various "powers" that represent "the people"; the individual, the State and the Federal. Diversity in unity was an important value for our nation.
Today, our government is being challenged by minorities that think their rights come before "the people". The "rights" movement represent such groups as the Black Panthers, who want "justice" for past injustices. But, how are we or can we pay for what we didn't see at the time? Slavery was an accepted norm. And norms form society and maintain society's order. Women have not sought reparation for past discrimination or injustice!
Immigrants were always welcome on our shores and the "Statute of Liberty" stands at Ellis Island to represent those that found the United States as their land of freedom. But, today, those that infilterate our borders are disrespecting our country and its "rule of law". Those that work may be little more slaves, themselves. But, what of those that infillterate our country bringing in disease, drugs, fire-arms and wrong motivations? Don't those in leadership have a duty to protect the citizens from those that would bring our country harm? Illegal immigrants are little more than revolutionaries when they disrespect our Constitution.
The "Tea Parties" have been labelled as revolutionary, because of their identification with the Boston Tea Party. But, are these truly revolutionaries? Are citizens that ask their government to be accountable to its people revolutionary? Doesn't our "Bill of Rights" grant us the freedom of assembly? The problem, I believe, is in limiting freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech should not be limited unless it can be proven that it is "hate speech", which means that violent actions are intended. Such speech calls others to action in such a way that would bring about social chaos. Martin Luther King never used his "civil rights revolution" in such a way. He was a peaceful revolutionary. He called for dissent, but not violence. He called for resistance, but not revolution.
Our country is going through some serious difficulties presently and we, "the people" should be supportive of respecting our Constituional government. We should do everything we can to petition, dissent, speak out, and participate in our government, so that we, "the people" will not become, we, "the government"!
Revolutionaries revolutionize whenever "the human" is disregarded, disrespected, or dismissed. "The human" is when liberty rules over the people and the "rule of law' protects such liberty. Today, we have many problems because we don't appreciate why our Founding Fathers formed the government like they did. The balance of power was to protect against abuses of power. And the judiary branch was to remain independent from influence, while the legislature was to represent the various "powers" that represent "the people"; the individual, the State and the Federal. Diversity in unity was an important value for our nation.
Today, our government is being challenged by minorities that think their rights come before "the people". The "rights" movement represent such groups as the Black Panthers, who want "justice" for past injustices. But, how are we or can we pay for what we didn't see at the time? Slavery was an accepted norm. And norms form society and maintain society's order. Women have not sought reparation for past discrimination or injustice!
Immigrants were always welcome on our shores and the "Statute of Liberty" stands at Ellis Island to represent those that found the United States as their land of freedom. But, today, those that infilterate our borders are disrespecting our country and its "rule of law". Those that work may be little more slaves, themselves. But, what of those that infillterate our country bringing in disease, drugs, fire-arms and wrong motivations? Don't those in leadership have a duty to protect the citizens from those that would bring our country harm? Illegal immigrants are little more than revolutionaries when they disrespect our Constitution.
The "Tea Parties" have been labelled as revolutionary, because of their identification with the Boston Tea Party. But, are these truly revolutionaries? Are citizens that ask their government to be accountable to its people revolutionary? Doesn't our "Bill of Rights" grant us the freedom of assembly? The problem, I believe, is in limiting freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech should not be limited unless it can be proven that it is "hate speech", which means that violent actions are intended. Such speech calls others to action in such a way that would bring about social chaos. Martin Luther King never used his "civil rights revolution" in such a way. He was a peaceful revolutionary. He called for dissent, but not violence. He called for resistance, but not revolution.
Our country is going through some serious difficulties presently and we, "the people" should be supportive of respecting our Constituional government. We should do everything we can to petition, dissent, speak out, and participate in our government, so that we, "the people" will not become, we, "the government"!
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
What is the Rationale?
This morning I watched an Ethics panel that consisted of many Supreme Court Judges. It got me thinking about minority rights, common sense, and public interest.
One of the questions was about "Originalist" interpretation of the Constitution and whether this would be the value to be upheld. The discussion went back and forth over what did it mean to interpret according to "original intent" versus what society's needs, or problems were at a given time. The conservative, versus the progressive use of the law always leaves one to question, "what is the rationale behind these views"?
Then, one of the justices said something that perked my interest and made me question, "what is the rationale", today?
She said, that she was older and had seen many changes come about over the years she has served on the Supreme Court. But, today's attitude that dismisses the judge's decision and may even take the judge to jail was "disturbing" to her. I would concur with her assessment!
How is justice to be maintained or a free society upheld, when the ones who hold the key to our laws are in "fear and trembling' that they may be targets of "mob rule"? This was not the original intent of our Founding Fathers. They wanted the court free to judge, so that power could be balanced and society could function under the social norms that "ruled" under their interpretive hand.
If such a situation is ever allowed, where judges are accountable to the people, then we have anarchy, indeed! Judges make the judgments about our laws, in how they are applied. The legislature make the laws of our land. And maybe this is where the cupability lies.
If the legislature is making the laws that guard or guide our country, then they are the ones that are accountably to the people throught the voting booth. These legislatures need accountability through term limits, I believe, so that none can make "empires' for themselves, using the law to do so.
We found our country upon the principle that we would not be taxed without being represented. Our property was to be protected from government's grab by our vote and our Constitutonal right to representation in Congress.
At the same time the peasantry were to be represented, the States were also to have their interests represented.
Arizona has made laws that further the Constitutional obligation of protecting our nation. But, the federal government doesn't see any "power grab" in subverting the Constitution's obligation to protect our nation's interests. What is more important, it seems, is to protect illegal immigrants. But, at what costs? Only the American taxpayer. We, the people has become "We, the Government". Individual citizens are loosing their right to privacy, protection, and the right to their nation under the auspices of "greater good" language. But, at what costs? What is the rationale? Is it about politics, and the next election?
The executive branch is asserting more and more power from other branches and this was not the balance of power the Founders intended, either. What is the rationale? Is it about ruling at the costs of governing? Is it about power, rather than about liberty?
I think our country and all its inhabitants need to ask their government, "What is the rationale"?
One of the questions was about "Originalist" interpretation of the Constitution and whether this would be the value to be upheld. The discussion went back and forth over what did it mean to interpret according to "original intent" versus what society's needs, or problems were at a given time. The conservative, versus the progressive use of the law always leaves one to question, "what is the rationale behind these views"?
Then, one of the justices said something that perked my interest and made me question, "what is the rationale", today?
She said, that she was older and had seen many changes come about over the years she has served on the Supreme Court. But, today's attitude that dismisses the judge's decision and may even take the judge to jail was "disturbing" to her. I would concur with her assessment!
How is justice to be maintained or a free society upheld, when the ones who hold the key to our laws are in "fear and trembling' that they may be targets of "mob rule"? This was not the original intent of our Founding Fathers. They wanted the court free to judge, so that power could be balanced and society could function under the social norms that "ruled" under their interpretive hand.
If such a situation is ever allowed, where judges are accountable to the people, then we have anarchy, indeed! Judges make the judgments about our laws, in how they are applied. The legislature make the laws of our land. And maybe this is where the cupability lies.
If the legislature is making the laws that guard or guide our country, then they are the ones that are accountably to the people throught the voting booth. These legislatures need accountability through term limits, I believe, so that none can make "empires' for themselves, using the law to do so.
We found our country upon the principle that we would not be taxed without being represented. Our property was to be protected from government's grab by our vote and our Constitutonal right to representation in Congress.
At the same time the peasantry were to be represented, the States were also to have their interests represented.
Arizona has made laws that further the Constitutional obligation of protecting our nation. But, the federal government doesn't see any "power grab" in subverting the Constitution's obligation to protect our nation's interests. What is more important, it seems, is to protect illegal immigrants. But, at what costs? Only the American taxpayer. We, the people has become "We, the Government". Individual citizens are loosing their right to privacy, protection, and the right to their nation under the auspices of "greater good" language. But, at what costs? What is the rationale? Is it about politics, and the next election?
The executive branch is asserting more and more power from other branches and this was not the balance of power the Founders intended, either. What is the rationale? Is it about ruling at the costs of governing? Is it about power, rather than about liberty?
I think our country and all its inhabitants need to ask their government, "What is the rationale"?
Monday, July 12, 2010
When Rights Make Wrongs
Rights are the American "birth-right", as Americans believe that the individual matters. But, when do rights make for wrongs? Rights have limitations, don't they? Or do they?
Last night, I watched Geraldo, who had asked a Black Panther onto his show. Geraldo, Fox News, and many other America institutions were villified in the name of "civil rights". Film clip snippetts were shown where Black Panthers were calling for violence to establish justice. Geraldo was visibly upset and disturbed over the "racist rhetoric" and tried unsuccessful (IMO) to get this Black Panther lawyer to see or listen to his viewpoint. What would have been the response if a white person had said similar racist statements, calling for "equality" and "justice"?
It was obvious after a few minutes that the conversation was not going to be a dialogue, or even a question and answer format, but a controlled and determined rant on how the African American has been treated. The "old, old" story of discrimination, a lack of equal opportunity, etc. etc.
When Geraldo tried to point out how it was the white majority that fought in the Civil War, elected Abraham Lincoln, etc., the Black Panther repeated that Glenn Beck was being pointedly disrespectful to host a 'tea party' on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on Martin Luther King's birthday. Do whites not have any rights on Martin Luther King's birthday? Do we not have a right to the Lincoln Memorial, or is it only a "Black" sanctuary, holy ground for sacred rights?
I don't know where this will end, but it must. Groups that demand rights, divide our nation and bring disharmony to society.
Is there a difference when African Americans "speak hotly" and angrily about "civil rights" and when the "tea parties" do?
I think so. But, why?
The tea parties seek to bring accountability to government where there has been unaccountability. America is a representative Republic, where the representatives have not heard or do not care to represent their contiuencies. We are going to be taxed for a healthcare plan that the majority did not want. And the administrator of Medicare seems to have oppositional views from the American populace.
Accountability and equality were the themes in the beginning of Martin Luther King's civil rights movement. Today, though, after equal rights have been passed, and anti-discrimanatory laws have been "established", people have come to accept diversity and expect it. No one can help individual cases where prejuidiced people do evil things in the name of their prejuidice. We shouldn't be surprised by such behavior, as humans do divide and understand their "world" by categorization.
These Black Panthers are seeking justice by angry dissent, without considering any other point of view than their own.
Groups that seek to divide America by strife and bitterness should have their rights stripped from them. America is a free nation and one can find some place to belong, without demanding uniformity when it comes to the diverse population that makes America what it is. We are not to be united by creed, race, or social standing. We are Americans, and we are united by our liberty. The very liberty that is being challenged by those that seek to suggest that America is an imperialistic, and bigotted nation.
Last night, I watched Geraldo, who had asked a Black Panther onto his show. Geraldo, Fox News, and many other America institutions were villified in the name of "civil rights". Film clip snippetts were shown where Black Panthers were calling for violence to establish justice. Geraldo was visibly upset and disturbed over the "racist rhetoric" and tried unsuccessful (IMO) to get this Black Panther lawyer to see or listen to his viewpoint. What would have been the response if a white person had said similar racist statements, calling for "equality" and "justice"?
It was obvious after a few minutes that the conversation was not going to be a dialogue, or even a question and answer format, but a controlled and determined rant on how the African American has been treated. The "old, old" story of discrimination, a lack of equal opportunity, etc. etc.
When Geraldo tried to point out how it was the white majority that fought in the Civil War, elected Abraham Lincoln, etc., the Black Panther repeated that Glenn Beck was being pointedly disrespectful to host a 'tea party' on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on Martin Luther King's birthday. Do whites not have any rights on Martin Luther King's birthday? Do we not have a right to the Lincoln Memorial, or is it only a "Black" sanctuary, holy ground for sacred rights?
I don't know where this will end, but it must. Groups that demand rights, divide our nation and bring disharmony to society.
Is there a difference when African Americans "speak hotly" and angrily about "civil rights" and when the "tea parties" do?
I think so. But, why?
The tea parties seek to bring accountability to government where there has been unaccountability. America is a representative Republic, where the representatives have not heard or do not care to represent their contiuencies. We are going to be taxed for a healthcare plan that the majority did not want. And the administrator of Medicare seems to have oppositional views from the American populace.
Accountability and equality were the themes in the beginning of Martin Luther King's civil rights movement. Today, though, after equal rights have been passed, and anti-discrimanatory laws have been "established", people have come to accept diversity and expect it. No one can help individual cases where prejuidiced people do evil things in the name of their prejuidice. We shouldn't be surprised by such behavior, as humans do divide and understand their "world" by categorization.
These Black Panthers are seeking justice by angry dissent, without considering any other point of view than their own.
Groups that seek to divide America by strife and bitterness should have their rights stripped from them. America is a free nation and one can find some place to belong, without demanding uniformity when it comes to the diverse population that makes America what it is. We are not to be united by creed, race, or social standing. We are Americans, and we are united by our liberty. The very liberty that is being challenged by those that seek to suggest that America is an imperialistic, and bigotted nation.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Why Individual Conscience Is Important to Democratic Ideals
Whether one is a Republican or Democrat, leadership is necessary for maintaining order, forming policy solutions to the problems a nation faces. Why is American individualism important for the democratic ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?And what is the importance of society and the value of societal conscience?
Life is the most important aspect to any policy decision-making. What does life mean and what quality of life is necessary for "good governing"? Some believe that quality is necessary for life to really exist and this quality is met in a free and democratic society.
Life has to have its physical needs met. And these physical needs are what many liberals deem important for good governing, as it is compassionate leadership and demands social justice. But, can we gurantee such rights, without limiting liberty? And is liberty of secondary importance to social security? Is life as defined with limited liberty by government officials really what life is about? And how do the government officials decide where to draw their lines for the individuals within their society? Can the government garuntee anything, really? Isn't our government about self-governance and limite governemnt?
Liberty is another important democratic value, in fact, it defines democracy. Democracy allows the individual his right to "own his own life", and requires responsible behavior toward that end. But, those that deem that liberty makes life unfair because of advantages beyond an individual's control, think that liberty must be defined by social justice. Otherwise, society, itself, falters and is frustrated in flourishing. Leadership thinks it should determine what is just and equitable. Government grows and expands in furthering "social security".
The pursuit of happiness is identified by the indvidual's right to pursue his own ends. And the pursuit of happiness is variable in a democracy because of the variability of individual and his chosen values. Laws are created to define boundaries to protect against injustice to another. But, if govenment officials define "happiness" too stringently and choose the values too definitively for their society, the society ceases to be "free". Some believe that it is the right, in fact, the duty of leaders to limit another's right to choice, because society must be protected from those that would undermine society's "collective" benefit.
Collectivism is the bane and demise of the individual because it limits choice, defines values, and takes away the motivation to "better oneself". While collectivism is necessary for the child in forming his/her development, the "collective" ceases to be necessary for self-motivated individuals, who puruse their own purpsose and purpose their own plans. Self determination is an important value in free societies.
Today's news brings concern to many about how "collective groups" propose to bring about "social justice". The Black Panthers were being investigated in court for intimidating voters at the voting booth in the last Presidental election. One Black Panther went so far as to voice his hatred for "crackers", and call for the killing of "crackers" . This attitude is "social justice" gone wild. The Justice Department has withdrawn its investigation, because of so called discrimination. Stipulation of "just desserts" because of past sins, will never result in furthering democratic ideals.
This morning a caller called in to ask whether she was justified is asking for recompense for her lost income due to the BP oil accident. She is a realtor and has made $16,000 in the past for the months of May and June, but she has suffered loss because people are waiting to see if they want to buy in this real estate market, when property values probably will decrease.
Will BP honor every single litigant, and what will be their judgment on whether someone is "justified for retribution"? How will they determine monetary value? And will monetary value settle all of the "losses" those in the Gulf have suffered?
So, why is collectivism being "pushed" in today's political climate? Won't the ones who have the most power be the ones to "call the shots" for all of us? And what will be the foundation of their power? Their money? Their position? or What? And what will life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness look like when "collective" policies "take over" and we are all paying for it?
Life is the most important aspect to any policy decision-making. What does life mean and what quality of life is necessary for "good governing"? Some believe that quality is necessary for life to really exist and this quality is met in a free and democratic society.
Life has to have its physical needs met. And these physical needs are what many liberals deem important for good governing, as it is compassionate leadership and demands social justice. But, can we gurantee such rights, without limiting liberty? And is liberty of secondary importance to social security? Is life as defined with limited liberty by government officials really what life is about? And how do the government officials decide where to draw their lines for the individuals within their society? Can the government garuntee anything, really? Isn't our government about self-governance and limite governemnt?
Liberty is another important democratic value, in fact, it defines democracy. Democracy allows the individual his right to "own his own life", and requires responsible behavior toward that end. But, those that deem that liberty makes life unfair because of advantages beyond an individual's control, think that liberty must be defined by social justice. Otherwise, society, itself, falters and is frustrated in flourishing. Leadership thinks it should determine what is just and equitable. Government grows and expands in furthering "social security".
The pursuit of happiness is identified by the indvidual's right to pursue his own ends. And the pursuit of happiness is variable in a democracy because of the variability of individual and his chosen values. Laws are created to define boundaries to protect against injustice to another. But, if govenment officials define "happiness" too stringently and choose the values too definitively for their society, the society ceases to be "free". Some believe that it is the right, in fact, the duty of leaders to limit another's right to choice, because society must be protected from those that would undermine society's "collective" benefit.
Collectivism is the bane and demise of the individual because it limits choice, defines values, and takes away the motivation to "better oneself". While collectivism is necessary for the child in forming his/her development, the "collective" ceases to be necessary for self-motivated individuals, who puruse their own purpsose and purpose their own plans. Self determination is an important value in free societies.
Today's news brings concern to many about how "collective groups" propose to bring about "social justice". The Black Panthers were being investigated in court for intimidating voters at the voting booth in the last Presidental election. One Black Panther went so far as to voice his hatred for "crackers", and call for the killing of "crackers" . This attitude is "social justice" gone wild. The Justice Department has withdrawn its investigation, because of so called discrimination. Stipulation of "just desserts" because of past sins, will never result in furthering democratic ideals.
This morning a caller called in to ask whether she was justified is asking for recompense for her lost income due to the BP oil accident. She is a realtor and has made $16,000 in the past for the months of May and June, but she has suffered loss because people are waiting to see if they want to buy in this real estate market, when property values probably will decrease.
Will BP honor every single litigant, and what will be their judgment on whether someone is "justified for retribution"? How will they determine monetary value? And will monetary value settle all of the "losses" those in the Gulf have suffered?
So, why is collectivism being "pushed" in today's political climate? Won't the ones who have the most power be the ones to "call the shots" for all of us? And what will be the foundation of their power? Their money? Their position? or What? And what will life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness look like when "collective" policies "take over" and we are all paying for it?
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
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.
"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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
