America, Republicans, Democrats and Values

Americans love diversity, but not complexity. This is my theory on why we only have a two party system. We value freedom so much that we do not investigate what we really believe. But, our freedoms are only ours because there have been those who have investigated the complexity of the issues and sought to bring about a system that most benefitted and represented the many. Our two party system which represents ALL of us, I think should divide into several different parties, instead of remaining a two party system, then we Americans that care, can be informed of a number of different ways in which to view different issues. Then, mores of us can be involved in our representative government and we can continue to do what was done in the past, but with more awareness of the complexity of the issues than our Founding Fathers ever comprehended.

Americans love their freedom to do what we deem "fit" and don't want to be bothered by things outside our scope of "life". We value freedom, but are not willing to "pay the cost for it". Some of the cost to us recently is because of a two party system. While a two party system is much easier to evaluate , it limits our "education" in governmental concerns.

Last night, while watching the Democratic National Convention, it was more and more obvious to me the distinctions between the two parties. The Republicans, while valuing the free market system, most value the freedom of the individual in pursuing their goals and dreams by hard work, ingenuity, and innovation. These values have brought about what we most enjoy as Americans, economic freedom; liberty.

But, while this freedom of economics is an ultimate for American values, the Democrats prey on on the downside to that value; man's innate coveteousness and promise economic freedom to all, irregardless of education, work, ingenuity, or innovation. Democrats believe that we should be socially accountable because we do not all have equal opportunity. This social accountability in economics feeds into government's purpose in provision for the needy. While many in our world and some in our nation do not have enough economic freedom, what should guide the values of Americans in these two diverse views?

While we are individuals made in God's image and must take our own responsibility before God and others in how we choose to live our life, we are also called to care about others. The difficulty lies in how do we "care about the needs" in our nation/world. The Republican chooses to leave it to personal choice, while the Democrats want the government to take the responsibility for the needs of the needy. There is a difficulty with both views.

While one leaves the door open to crass capitalism, ignoring the needy's needs, the other oppresses the market, where there is no "cream on the top" to be given to the poor. A free market system is necessary for the flourishing of our economy. And the flourishing of the eoconmy is necessary for there to be enough profit for the individuals who have benefitted to provide for the needs of the needy, through charitable giving.

Again, we are individually accountable in how we are stewards of our resources. Both Democrats and Republicans prey on the coveteousness of our hearts. One does so in the name of justice for the poor, the other in seeking liberty of the market. Neither is wrong, unless the one seeking justice or liberty does so at the expense of the "other".

Neopotism, Law and Ethics

While in Spain and learning about the Hasburgs, the Medicis, et al, it became clearer to me how the world used to view marriage and political alliances.

Marriage was a political alliance, not a commitment of love and trust. This was an accepted form of governing the peasantry. While this brought political fruitfulness in trade and diplomacy, what did it do for the peasants?

While touring the Royal Palace in Madrid, it was pointed out that the King and Queen of Spain would wash a number of peasants feet, to remind them of their duty under God. I thought this was important as it signified that the Royals understood that their duty was under God and brought accountability.

With the American Revolution, laws were formed to protect rights and the duties under God were balanced by accountability to other branches of government. It was not assumed that leaders would be fair and just in their dealings unless there was this balance of power.

One of the laws that maintain equal justice under law is the law against neopotism. It inhibits relatives or friends from partiality in political or job alliances. It is based on an equality under the law, where all are respected with equal opportunities.

Although everyone knows that neopotism happens, ideally, it shouldn't. I value this law because it gives opportunity to those who may not have that opportunity otherwise. It affirms all as equal before the law. And it protects from corruption. Corruption is bred on the heels of "good ole boy" systems.

Unfortunately, our government's first leaders were viewed as public servants under God. Nowadays, government's leaders are viewed as image builders and maintainers. Real Character does not matter, it is what people think about their leaders, not what is actually true.....

Without a responsibility and commitment to those who they serve, leaders cannot help but be unethical in their governance. Laws were to protect the freedoms of everyone, not just those in leadership.

Religious Freedom and Values

This past week-end at a friend's house, my husband and I watched an Arabic TV show on Islam. After watching this program, we turned to Fox news and watched "Honor Killings", where two American teenagers were murdered by their father within America's borders. In light of certain "tolerance" messages that I've recently recieved via e-mail, I am becoming more and more disturbed.

Religious freedom was a value America was founded on. Today, we find ourselves stressed to find a solution when it comes to religious freedoms. Immigration used to mean that the new Americans assimilated and became part of the "melting pot". Today, America has many segregated niches within her borders.

What does this mean when it comes to religious freedom? On one hand our nation's laws have been tolerant toward religious expression, it has been the wall between Church and State. Tolerance has been valued on the basis of reason, because experience has taught us that without it, we stand to loose much more than just religious freedom.

But, today's climate breeds a contradiction in terms to our religious tolerance. Islamic fundamentalists are not tolerant to religious freedoms or to laws that protect religious freedom. So, if our courts "take up the cause" of determining what defines religious intolerance, then are we not at the doors of a State determining or evaluating a religion's "right" to exist? Will we be tempted to create sanctioned "state religions"?

In light of the "honor" killings, we cannot look the other way when it comes to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", can we? Make no mistake about it, fundamentalist religions do not tolerate diversity. Religion, in this sense, is conformity to certain standards that are measurable. And these standards justify many "heart sins" as well as overt killings in the name of "god". The values we hold for the individual are despised by these types of religious interpretations. Written texts are literal and are implemented in the name of "god". It is based on a shame and honor culture that uses fear, intimidation, humiliation and any other "justified" means to implement a standardized culture upon humans. It is not humane because the concern is for "god" and not Man.

The question for America is: should we trust the Islamic "moderates", who promise to educate the "peasants" about moderation? Will education in the usual sense make a difference for those who have been "brain-washed" (in a cultic sense)? And how does America in the meantime "do" foreign policy when it comes to rogue nations? Do we still believe that all desire to be "free" as individuals? And do the Churches within America's borders believe that the individual is a valued "image-bearer", who have certain inalienable rights or do American churches have a "group identity"? Isn't part of our American Christian experiment our diversity in viewpoints? And isn't diversity where our denominations define our religion? Isn't faith really about being human, instead of the dogma and doctrines of the Church of the past?

Beauty, Art and Value

In the past two weeks, I have had a number of opportunities to revel in the beauty of art! In Spain, my husband and I viewed three musuems with works from Picasso, Goya, and Dali, who are native sons of Spain, but we also saw works by van Gogh, Rembrandt, da Vinci, etc. This past Friday, a friend took me to Marjorie Merriweather Post's mansion, where we viewed interior design, jewelry, landscaping, etc. Tonight, my husband and I will go with another couple to hear some classical music and dine at a French restuarant.

What do all these things have in common? Human innovation in creative "arts" that are only representative of another realm. Beauty is not functional EXCEPT to point beyond itself to bring a sense of awe or reverence, or to make a statement of meaning that could not be expressed in the functional. The humanities are indeed important to "man" and should be respected by the Christian, for it is in experiencing life's beauty that the worship of "God" can function. Theology itself is an "art". Without beauty, life is less colorful, and lively and therefore, less enjoyable and meaningful.

Some believe that these enjoyments should be denied, as they are an extravagant and wasteful use of means. This is asceticism. I would argue that it is not the ends, but the reasons that are the important aspect of virtue. Do we with gratitude experience our lives, understanding that all is gift?

Sex, Relationships, and Value

On a recent blog post, it was revealed that the Anglican Church is struggling with issues of identity. There seems to be a difference of opinion where it concerns certain behaviors in the Church.

One main controversy in the Church is homosexuality. Should the homosexual be allowed to attend and fellowship within the walls of churches. The spectrum of opinion runs from full acceptance within leadership to withdrawing and shunning.

I believe that we must discuss this issue with an open mind, for many social issues have challenged the Church in the past and have brought segments of change. What is the standard for marriage?

Some argue that the Church's authority resides within the covers of the text, the "Bible". These are the fundamentalists, who believe in the infalliability of "God's Word". They interpret the test literally and fear for the sake of society God's judgment, if homosexuality is condoned in any form.

Then, there are those who have "no standards" of judgment. These people believe that homosexuals are just like anyone else in this world, seeking acceptance, love and purpose. What should be the Church's stance?

I don't believe that the Church will ever fully agree on anything in this life, as disagreement has happened over the course of time in every aspect of man's existence. But, the Church is called to view marriage within certain ways. What is marriage about? Is marriage about two people, whose character's illustrate the values ofs commitment, loyalty, and love? Is marriage only about the form and purpose of sex? The Catholic Church has taken a traditional stand against homosexual relationships, because of the traditional understanding of procreation. Is procreation the only reason for sex within a Christian marriage? In fact, the Catholic Church takes a stand against "unnatural forms" of contraception .If procreation is the only reason for sex within marriage, then should sex continue after the years of child-bearing? If marriage is ultimately for child-bearing, then why do traditional marriage vows not include that aspect of marriage?

Marriage is about a relationship between two people and their vow of "forsaking all others". It is represented by identification, as Christ to the Church. Why then, is a monogmous homosexual union "unrighteous"? Is it because of a literal reading of the text of Scripture?

Some argue that homosexuals should abstain from the temptation, even if it becomes proven that homosexuality is "genetically determined". Those who argue this way corrolate homosexuality with alcoholism. The alcoholic is predisposed to the disease of alcoholism and must practice self-control in abstinence. Isn't alcoholism abuse of alcohol? Unless one adheres to alcohol as inherently evil, then it is not the alcohol that is evil but its abuse. The same argument holds for sex. If marriage is not just for child-bearing but also for the expression of sexual love and sex is not inherently evil, then sexual expression is not wrong except outside of rightful place (within marriage). As Paul argues that nothing is unlawful, but some things are unbeneficial.

Perversion can be about anything, even things that are usually blessings. This is why moderation is the character that is virtuous.

Culture, Tradition and Difference

In our multicultural world, it is unacceptable to be prejuidiced. So, we struggle to identify where our prejuidices are and when they raise their "ugly heads", we submerge them in a "sea of denial". Why don't we sift our prejuidices for "gems of reality" and underpinning of value(s)?

Whenever one has suffered at the hands of intolerance, there are two wrong possible responses. While both are submerged in a mass of pain and humiliation, one circumvents a full development of reason in the name of tolerance, while the other response becomes just as hostile and intolerant as ther perpetuators. Fear is the root of both. While the merciful want nothing to do with intolerance, the just want nothing to do with tolerance. There is no moderation and rationale of emotion.

Culture is the environment of a location or a group. The culture of prejuidice defines that culture by it boundaries created by the laws and rules that shape that culture. Prejuidice is not necessarily wrong in these instances, for it is only in definition that the group or culture can identify itself from another. Humanity, undefined, cannot be embraced for it is only in the specified that another understands and can embrace with knowledge. Knowledge is a necessary component of love.

While love does embrace, it at the same time does not have to condone all aspects of another's life. We can love and be prejuidiced. We can embrace and reject. The values that the individual holds represents the goals of his/her life. Bring these goals to the fore and allow the values to take care of themselves.

Human Expression, Creativity, and Human Rights

Human expression is a necessary part of being "human". Without the creativity of human expression ,"man" ceases to be unique. And the unique expression of the individual are granted by certain rights as "being human" and are given by nature's god.

Creativity is the person's "giftedness" and "individuality" being expressed and it is garunteed in our Bill of Rights, as freedoms that uphold a government that values the individual as uniquely created. The exceptionally creative are usually not accepted by the "rules", "laws" that govern a particular group. These groups are governed by the "elite" of that particular class (artists who have "won" respect, writers who have sold more books, scientists who have published more papers...).The "creative" do not fit inside a box of conformity and "niceness". In training animals, behavior modification and conditioning "form" the animal into a "shape". But, the difference in being "human" is the free expression of individuality, which expresses "god" in many forms (and not a shaping of conformity as religion does). Laws cannot legislate the human, only protect the freedoms that identify the "human".

Freedom of speech and freedom of press is a "right" garunteed by our government. These freedoms presuppose the individual's right to form his own opinion in a free and open society. Last night, while watching a news program, it was reported that John McCain was unable to publish an op ad piece in the N.Y. Times. The N. Y. Times sent it back to him asking him to revise his piece by stating the exact vision he has about the Iraqi war. Several things bother me about this....

John McCain is running for presidency and it is mandantory for the press to give him equal and fair coverage without stipulating what he may or may not publish. It is only when the people have free acess to a candidate's views and opinions that an informed decision can be made as to their vote. Only in a closed or totalitarian government is freedom of speech and the press circumvented. It is sometimes called propaganda (in religious terms it is called "indoctrination").

Secondly, the demand of the N.Y Times for McCain to give a time table for withdrawing troops is limiting and short sighted. John McCain cannot give the details as to a time scale for withdrawing from Iraqi. Anyone with experience in the complexities of foreign policy and politics would realize that hard and fast solutions are improbable, if not impossible. A lot of the" ideal vision" has to be revised when "new" information comes to the fore in regards to a changing situation, much less when negotiating with foreign governments and their "ideals". It is hard for me to believe with all the coverage of Obama's trips overseas (live coverage, if you will) that this is unfair. A while ago Russ Limbaugh was going to have to give "equal time" to the liberal opinion and it was all in the name of "fairness". No matter what your view of Limbaugh is, it is not freedom to demand "equal coverage" when he pays the bills for his programming.

Many conservative Christians assert that we have no "rights" and that we should trust God, as Sovereign in the "rule of the world". This cannot be unless one believes in a direct and absolute "cause" to the events that transpire. It is necessary in government, therefore, to seek to sift through many aspects concerning a situation and not understand events as direct causes of God. Men are the rulers of governments, not God. And it is not a uniformity as to religious "ideals", as to the shape of a free and humane society. It is all men who are responsible for that government, who are called to be informed and involved and not allow fate to express itself and call it "god".

There is no form in this world that is perfect, but there is a closer manifestation of humane governance. I believe that the American form is the best, for it affirms all humans as God's creations and grants them equal rights. Even the "creative", who have brought about social reformation in our laws have been granted freedom of expression. and there is no "creative" businessman who would diminish the freedom of our government in allowing him to pursue his own ends. This is the great experiment of American government and its affirmation of human expression, creativity and human rights.