Bifucation of Life

I believe that for so long I lived my life in bifucation. I attempted to form and view things from separating the sacred from the secular. That is what fundamentalists do. They think that all of life's answers are found in the text. And it was a sickness for/to me. And i personally think it is also dangerous for others.

I would much rather face things as normal and everyday problems, with solutions or a seeking of a solution in the Academy. Humans are human and solutions are solutions. It doesn't matter if there are spiritual terms, (altho I find such language as disingenuous) or "holy water" sprinkled around, so the spiritually infected are appeased.

I  am a little "put off" by religion, and spirituality and for good reason. These terms are useful for manipulation, though it is not seen that way. And such terms are useful for creating a reality that might not exist. I know all the arguments for the "probabilities for God", but I would rather face my life knowing that I am responsible, not God, to fix it, to understand it, and/or to create it, whatever "it" happens to require.

I find that humans can hide behind thier relgiious terms, and groups. Don't get me wrong, I value friends as much as anyone, but religious clicks can be quite exclusive in how they define themselves. Such exclusion is not humane and I find arrogant. The ones that "reach out" might have a patronizing or paternalistic view of those that didn't have "the heritage". Such comtempt for me or others, breeds my own contempt. I am sorry, but I thought that Chrsitianity was about me and my life, as well as "humanity's life. I was finally valued as a person, not for some reformation of who I was to become, becasue I didn't measure up. I have had enough of that.

The vision of the Church is focused on surviving the culture of today that doesn't particularly value the Church. And as death approaches its doors, the Church is frantically using whatever means to remain afloat. Humans gravitate to what interests them and find their place in the chosen social group. And framing things in a supernaturalistic way appeals to the feelings of  "God", so it grows the Church. So, emergants, post-modernity, or any other philosophical, business, social, psychological "model" is used for the Church's benefit, unbeknown to those in the pew who think their reality is really "from God".

The Church must re-orient their vision to re-frame their purpose, which is not spreading a spiritualtized "gospel", but a message of hope for those that have lost it. and some have done this in reaching their communities. This is social work 101, but it benefits society.

Universalism

Universalism can be understood in various contexts. Universalism as it has been discussed lately by Bell and the evangelical, is about supernatural salvation. What "God" wants to do to reconcile people to himself. But, the naturalist believes that humans believe in myth when they are framing their realities as children. Myth is know in anthropological terms as the way people frame their cultures. While cultures are human by-products, all cultures are not equal.

Universalism is about universalizing concepts about the world. Universalism is about human rights, global intiatives, and diplomatic efforts to resolve differences. It is "international relations". But, our world is fraught with complexities that are not easily solved. People disagree about what and how to go about dealing with these differences in the world.

Not everyone formulates their particularities in a universal frame, as it makes for discomfort. Identity is threatened by the "unknowns". But, universalization of identity is understanding "the human", which is understanding the generalities of mankind. The generalities of mankind (human development) cannot be universalized to the exclusion of particularity. And this is what liberty is about. Liberty understands particularity within the context of a Constitutional government.

How much of our cultural forming identity is internalized such that it inhibits a "re-framing"? Some are not bound to change their cultural values, even when faced with the facts of science. These are people that aren't open to understand thier own conditioning. Universalizers are those that push against the conventional understandings of "traditions". These seek to change the world in thier particular ways and impact society for different outcomes.

All of us are social transformers. We might not view ourselves that way, but what we do has impact upon others, whether we understand that or not. Humans have the need to belong and these needs are met within various social contexts. There is no one defined context in free societies, as individuals are allowed to choose their context/job/role for the most part.

Universalism has to be framed respecting boundaries of identification. The nation-state being the context of individual identification. Then, diplomatic action can be taken when there are disagreements about where one's values lie. Nation-states are to uphold international laws, which protect global concerns. International law defines terror. And terror is what happens to humans whenever laws are broken, because the laws give a certain expectation or hope for order. The human brain/mind seeks to order the world and laws give the needed context for a sense of security.

Laws that are defined by tightly defined religous or poltiical regimes are confining to individuality and limit possibilities of outcome under the guise of "order". These regimes hold control over society out of 'fear". But, such order undermines human value itself, which international laws seek to uphold.

Universalism is an ideal of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all humans. But, it cannot be found apart from proper government, which allows such liberty. The West values liberty under law, or "ordered liberty", therefore, all cultures are not equal.

This Is the Way I Think....

 E.M. Forster said, “How can I know what I think till I see what I say?” I read this on another's blog and I like the comment because it is true for me, too.

Many times there are so many "ribbons of thought" that I cannot tie them together, until I start to write. I know that my writing is dense and my thinking unrefined, but I love tying ideas together, to create new forms, or new understandings or thinking through problems, or analyzing some puzzle or something I've read. The problem remains that I don't know so much. I am ill informed in many areas, but I love to learn...

So, I enjoy my blog. It is for myself that I write and if it meets another's need, then all the better. But, I think it is important to do what is valuable to oneself, as in finding what is of value, one can benefit others, too.. I used to be attuned to what another's "need" was, or how I would offend, or bring conflict to another. But, that kind of thinking is gone now with blogging. Why?

Blogging is taking advantage of one of the liberties in our society; the freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Without these liberties, we would not be free to think and thinking is the first step to rationality in framing one's life. People should not live without a rationale. And in free societies there can be different rationales in serving one's ulitmate values and commitments.

Some don't think that thinking or ideas are important, but our Founders ideals of "life, liberty" and the pursuit of happiness depend on individuals coming to terms with what these terms mean to them, personally. And personal conviction is where commitment begins, not in irrationality.

I am so grateful to live in a society that values liberty, without which I would not have the right to pursue personal interests. Without personal interests, one can only live their life under the demands of another's values, power or purpose. And whether living one's life under such conditions would be of benefit to society or not, it is not a "moral good" that such determinations happen.

Liberty and Faith

America was founded on the principle of liberty. Liberty was of value to protect from factions (Federalist #10) because factions divided the nation into special interests. And special interests did not protect justice or liberty. Therefore, "faith" in American society is undefined faith, because the Founders did not want to establish a religious tradition (The First Amendment). But, "faith" was understood to be an important value to protect the social structures of the family. Our nation was a mix of  Enlightenment understanding and "faith" principles. Today's challenge is to combine such understanding with principles. Pragmatism and moral idealism were the 'standards' the Founders used to serve the nation's interests.

Enlightenment was the knowledge of man in scientific terms. Today's scientific understanding of man and his society has pushed aside the need for "faith" principles. In fact, "faith" has become a natural faith in reason, not revelation. All aspects of man and his environment is undestood within the Academy. The religious find it hard to defend religious texts as special revelation, other than defending "personal faith".

"Personal faith" is just that, "personal". It canot be defined, controlled, or reasoned from the outside. It is a faith development model, that understands "faith" as symbolic and human development as the real understanding to "faith".

 "Faith principles" are understood as character, in personal terms, as to values. These are not formed from without but are worked out from within. "God" is understood in symbolic ways of leadership in the here and now, not defined as a supernatural Being. The needed character for a "god" (government) is humility. And this is learned first in the family and "moral education". Fully formed "faith principles" is "self-governance, because self-governance was also self-resposible behavior". "Self-goverance" was a high value to our Founders, as without it, there could be "no union" because self-interested parties would undermine and make "war" for thier personal investments. This was one of the very reasons why "religion" was not to drive public policy, because it would inevitably bring about factions. Factions base their understanding of "faith" on "real understanding" of the transcendent. As the transcendent can only be appealed to but never "proved", these will always cause divisions in the nation.  It takes humility to unite when "faith" is so important that "faith communities" divide over its definition.

Humility requires an acknowledgement that leaders are needed if anything gets done. Humility frames the "personal" to be a part of what is needed to protect and prosper society, as a whole. The principle of the "personal" is also, an understood boundary to leadership. Good leadership does not presume and doesn't take advantage or intrude upon another's "personal". This is a character principle of humility and mutural respect. Though humility is needed, it does not "put its head in the sand" but uses the best information that is known in the Academy to further the "ends" of societal flourishing.

Today's sermon tried to balance the supernaturalists and the naturalists undestanding of religion, for societal benefit. The supernaturalists were appealed to on the basis of "God's vision" of love and hope....and the Church being of importance. The naturalists, on the other hand, were appealed to understand the need to the disadvantaged children in our society for education and encouraging character development. These children who have no healthy role models are those that need the impact from those that care about society's health as a whole.

Factions were never the intent of the Founders. They intended to build one nation "under God", but "God" was understood as a "faith principle", because we were mostly a Protestant nation. And faith can't be defined, except as a personal commitment of value in a free society. Those that seek to prevert or co-erce another's life in forming "faith" through "works" are "using scripture to over-ride" the moral principles of our Constitutional government, because the scriptures also say, that "whatsoever is not of faith is sin". And if the "just" live by "faith", then there is no more room for discussion, as whether one is a believer or unbeliever, faith is foremost a principle of character. A character that will not bend under the principle of Liberty and Faith.

Moral Realism and Language Games

Moral realism is grounded in the real world of "the political". What is claimed to be "moral" cannot be grasped without language. And language becomes the problem of diversity. Diversity of interests make for our public climate of "debate" about what "should" claim universal right to make the "goals" for societal benefit. So, what can be "the moral", if there are diverse ways of expressing the "moral"? The academic disciplines seek to claim the "moral" for their own purposes. But, all of these claims should be limited by our Constitutional government! We cannot allow the "universal" to undermine the personal, nor our nation-state.

Moral realism is based on Constitutional government in the poltical realm, where "the rule of law is King", not Dictators, Monarchs, Chiefs, Leaders, or Presidents! The rule of law makes definitions about nations and their values. Without such a government, the individual serves some other ends, than being an "end in himself"! This is the "rub" for us in the West, today. The liberal want to liberalize what cannot be liberalized without undermining the very basis of our protections, the rule of law!

Academic freedom is one of our highest values because we do not believe that any form of knowledge has a right to primacy over others. In other words, the political claim to knowledge should not have more power over other areas of knowledge in the Academy. Otherwise, we limit other perspectives, and make unwise or ungrounded decisions based on values that might limit the wider range of knowledge. I think such has happened with the natural sciences and economics. These have become politicized. And the religious claims to knowlege have underwritten these claims as absolute! Therefore, the environment, and the poor are the driving force behind political power. Political power that is driven for speicific goals, undermines the very basis of our Constitutional government. Politics then, become a war to maintain the power to control "language" or the attempt to defeat such "language" and expand the information base, so the "common" will beocme empowered. The Tea Party movement seeks to bring accountability to government in such a way.

Our country values liberty, as justice, because we believe that individuals must have the right to their life and property. These are negative rights, as government does not seek to impose these rights, but does defend them if they are undermined. We do not value those that make "special claims" about political power. Power is about personal ownership of one's life, Government must  be limited, not expanded. Otherwise, we limit the personal to the "common" and it undermines liberty as a value for a "universal value" of some other definition, i.e. the definition of the "empowered class".. Personal choice is based on personal values, not universal ones. Universal values, might limit personal ones, which undermine our understanding of the "moral" of a Constitutional government.

Today, we are challenged as to our diversity and the laws that protect diversity. Shairia law claims a "right" to religious tolerance in our society, that undermines our cultural values of equality and liberty of conscience. And the illegal immigrant claims "universal right" under the "Declaration of Human Rights". Is the "universal" to undermine the law of the nation state?  Are we to tolerate what undermines our very survival? Our laws protect our survival, because they set limitations, while protecting liberty. We cannot undermine our Constitutional government and our citizens right to protection under those laws.

Shairia cannot be allowed unless we fail to make laws that protect from the abuses that we deem inhumane treatment to the child, or the unequal treatment of women. That would limit radical Muslims from infilterating our country.

As to the illegal immigrant that fails to meet our immigration policies. We need to enforce the law, and we need to think through what to do about the drug trafficking that undermines our society, while appealing to those crossing our borders. Those immigrants that come to our country to find economic liberty must be taught how to make thier own life in their own country. Those that are here legally should be part of the solution in encouraging change in their home society. This way, our country, and theirs benefit. But, we cannot afford to promote nation-building, when other countries do not do their part.

Humane behavior needn't undermine our national interests. But, it should limit the resources we give to others. We cannot do something we cannot afford. We must be committed to viability at home, otherwise, we defeat ouselves in the proces of our "moral concern" for others. Such stipulations about our "investments" abroad must be studied. We can't have our country limited by environmental concerns, that undermine our own economic viability, while other countries are allowed that liberty.

Such issues as our natural environment, and "the poor" have been useful and used by the political class to further goals that subvert our national interests.

While scientists like to define the 'moral" on the principle of the natural, the political scientists like to view "the moral" on our constitutional government. So what is "moral"? That depends on one's interests and values. The liberal would uphold "natural selection", while the conservative believes in an equalization of power where all are created equal.

I read once where America is a country that was founded on pragmatism, and moral idealism! Our ideals allow liberty under law. Ordered liberty. And our pragmatic values should not be politicized to the extent that moral realism undermines another's right to describe things in another "language". Americans haven't valued "propaganda"!

"Moral Claims" About Human Rights, and The Poor

Human rights has a liberal agenda, but no less than "the poor". While "human rights" appeal to liberalizing "rights languagde" to "all people". "The poor" is specialized political language. Both appeal to different "kinds" of pre-dispositions toward "the human/humane". But, without discrimination of one kind or another, one can't make his own rational choice, but be a pawn to emotive identification factors!

While the liberal like universal terms, the conservative likes defined terms according to neurological research. The best way to "sell" globalized government is to sell each on its own "language tendency" based on emotion/sentiment that breeds identification and motivates to heroic action.

While the liberal humanitarian might like U.N. intervention, the conservative intellectual wouldn't see this as "justified" because one can't make any claims to anything, without defining, limiting, discriminating, as to what is allowed in the "real world"....not the idealized one, which is the nation-state. Our nation must defend its right, not bring about the universal Utopia that is so often sold to manipulate others. Human rights, or "the poor" are the terms of appeal to human sentiment to universalize what might be to the detriment of rational choice about one's life.

Identification has to be an alignment in/with the agenda or goal of a certain group. Emotion or sentimental visions, or hopes of "ideals" are the undermining of individual choice, and rights. Alturistic concern is a "group's norm" so that the social goal of equalizing the playing field is made.  This is what the "social gospel" proclaims. And it justifies its goals by the means of manipulating language to subvert "selfishness".

Moral claims are made under many guises and they mask demands of another's agenda, whether Church, State or a Dictatorial Leader. So, what is morality, except what one deems as one's own purposes, plans and goals in a free society under a Constitutional government. We must never give up our right to individual liberty!

Good People and Religion

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.

But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg (1933-)

Social psychologists have known this for a long time! Group behavior via religion tends to "not notice" its own tendency to radicalize! God justifies whatever is deemed "sacred", "holy", "set apart", etc. And when it does.....all kinds of evil from the death cults of Jim Jones, to the greed of a Jim Baker. Nothing is beyond the pale of religious zeal, righteousness, holiness, or "moral out-rage"! And such behavior is called "the fear of God"! But, is is really "self justification" or "self vindication" for those that "need" "God" to make them "feel better" about themselves and the world they live in!

Neuroscience has revealed that the liberal and conservative bias in religion and political views are genetically determined. The consevative is highly sensitzed to their senses, while the liberal is not. The conservative tends to be more emphathetic, than the liberal. So, what one believes about "right and wrong", is really determined by a society's laws. But, what is "felt" as "right or wrong" are genetic (innate) when it comes to cultural differences in a free society.