Kant said that a person should never be used as a means. I agree. He also was known for his Catergorical Imperative, which states that we act in a way that we wish would become a universal. This is an important universal, as it is a re-phrasing of "the Golden Rule". And this is where I think atheists have a point in theodicity, as how can one understand an evil that uses another human being for "great ends"? Governments or those in power are the ones who are responsible for creating environments that are best for the individual, so that he is not used as a means, and can choose to act as the Categorical Imperative would have. The problem with the Categorical Imperative is twofold. Where the universal standard of treating another like we would want to be treated, there remains the problem of differences in preferences. Some like hones forthright conversation, while others prefer insinuation, and a gentle nudge in the right direction. How does one treat another in a universal way, when it boils down to individual preferences?
Some who argue for the position of the Categorical Imperative are pacifists, since they believe that all individuals are important, they think that conflict should be resolved only through diplomatic means. I don't believe that diplomacy is open in closed countries, where there is little or no outside influence, because of their prejuidice about the outside world or their lack of information. The military are useful to protect our interests so that our freedoms can be maintained, as apart from these freedoms, we are doomed to fall into the hands of tyrannical leaders, whose purposes are not for the individual, but for their own misconcieved ends. And these ends use any means for their purposes, even individuals.
Some would claim that "God is the Blessed Controller" of all things and passively submit to injustice, while others seek to give out this "advice" so their control is maintained, or because they fear for their life. There is no universal in these situations, but in our free society, we must stand for justice. Rosa Parks, Gandhi would have never accomplished their ends if it had not been for standing for justice, whether the personal right of a seat on a bus, or discrimnation. Justice never just happens, but is activism for social, political, moral "causes". This is why Martin Luther King, Jr. , whose birthday we celebrate, said that "where injustice was allowed anywhere, it was an enemy to justice everywhere". It is not wrong to seek justice, as this is merciful to those who live under injustice, and where unjust governments and rulers rule, others suffer.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Politics, Fairness, and Representation
Politics is the domain of campaigning for power. Politics disregards the other side's interest as they are out to win. The Campaign and the partisanship is what we have come to expect in any political campaign. But, what are the results in our democratic form of government?
Politicians should be people of character, who represent others fairly, as ours is a representative government. Representation is necessary for the free to remain free, as each group has a right to exist and to be free in their understanding and practice of their particular life choices.
Fairness was brought home to me in answering a person's question on my blog site. He was questioning an application of my "ideals". As I answered him I used several terms that he furthur wanted information about where I stood. In responding more speicifically and conclusively, I realized and recgnized certain priorities for the politician that is important.
The politician must answer questions, with his opinion and then give reasons why he finds this position most reasonable. While his position can be stated forthrightly, it only furthers his cause to be informed of the other side, and/or how another application that would "speak" to the particular person would enlighten and enlarge the questioner, while underlining why he believes what he does.
I really enjoy the debate, I guess, as I answer the question, considering the sides and weighing my own convictions, again. I have changed my opinion about some things in my lifetime, as we all have.
So, in thinking about politics tonight, I became convinced that the politician should be a person of conviction, while being educated, open-minded, and fair. I wish I could say that all politicians behaved this way, but that is why we have the campaign and free elections...as the voters are the ones who hold the reigns of power first.
Politicians should be people of character, who represent others fairly, as ours is a representative government. Representation is necessary for the free to remain free, as each group has a right to exist and to be free in their understanding and practice of their particular life choices.
Fairness was brought home to me in answering a person's question on my blog site. He was questioning an application of my "ideals". As I answered him I used several terms that he furthur wanted information about where I stood. In responding more speicifically and conclusively, I realized and recgnized certain priorities for the politician that is important.
The politician must answer questions, with his opinion and then give reasons why he finds this position most reasonable. While his position can be stated forthrightly, it only furthers his cause to be informed of the other side, and/or how another application that would "speak" to the particular person would enlighten and enlarge the questioner, while underlining why he believes what he does.
I really enjoy the debate, I guess, as I answer the question, considering the sides and weighing my own convictions, again. I have changed my opinion about some things in my lifetime, as we all have.
So, in thinking about politics tonight, I became convinced that the politician should be a person of conviction, while being educated, open-minded, and fair. I wish I could say that all politicians behaved this way, but that is why we have the campaign and free elections...as the voters are the ones who hold the reigns of power first.
A Proof-Texting of a Life
We all have understandings of why we want to live a certain way, that is, if we live in free societies. People who do not live in free societies do not have choices about their lives.
Christians understand that their life is one that is valued and valueable because we are brought up with the Christian adopted "ideals" of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I think that Christians need to understand, especially for the more sectarian or fundamentalistically inclined, that life has meaning and meaning is ultimate value. We must decide for ourselves based on our personal value system and why those values matter. We must decide where we want to commit and why we want to commit where we do, as unto the Lord...
I find that those who hold power in these sectarian environments are not always balanced in their understandings of the complexity of issues, or ideals. They see their goal as an ultimate one, but do not limit their power in asserting their goals running over civil liberties in the process. It is never ethical to choose the purpose of another's life, no matter what the cause, or goal.
Christians understand that their life is one that is valued and valueable because we are brought up with the Christian adopted "ideals" of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I think that Christians need to understand, especially for the more sectarian or fundamentalistically inclined, that life has meaning and meaning is ultimate value. We must decide for ourselves based on our personal value system and why those values matter. We must decide where we want to commit and why we want to commit where we do, as unto the Lord...
I find that those who hold power in these sectarian environments are not always balanced in their understandings of the complexity of issues, or ideals. They see their goal as an ultimate one, but do not limit their power in asserting their goals running over civil liberties in the process. It is never ethical to choose the purpose of another's life, no matter what the cause, or goal.
A Follow-up on the Cross
In conventional conservative terms of discipleship, a life "well lived" would be modeled on Jesus of Nazareth. Christians can have no other way of living, thinking or being, if they are "committed believers". What would this mean to a life based on Jesus as "moral model"?
On the "bright side", charitable service and humble submission to death itself is the standard, as his was a life lived for others. This is a good moral model, but consider this for a moment....
If one's life was gifted for leadership, would Jesus life be the moral model best suited to follow? How would it be gauged that a life was meant to be modelled after Jesus? I have seen too many intelligent, gifted people sell themselves short because of the religious conviction that Jesus was the absolute model and standard for gauging humility, service, love, faith, etc....
I believe that the scholarly debate on whether Jesus existed or not is an important one. One bases their understanding on history, and the other bases their understanding of myth. History is the area of the real world, where myth is the arena of "representations" and "ideals". Leadership is the area of historical influence and important impact for change, whereas, representations are the people who represent the ideals in character and do these historical works to bringing change in the world.
The Cross, which has represented the sacrifice of Christ, has been a universal symbol for Christians. The cross in its representative form symbolizes the costs of developing the gifts that are necessary for becoming who we are meant to be and what we are meant to do. That cannot be determined by another, but ourselves alone.
On the "bright side", charitable service and humble submission to death itself is the standard, as his was a life lived for others. This is a good moral model, but consider this for a moment....
If one's life was gifted for leadership, would Jesus life be the moral model best suited to follow? How would it be gauged that a life was meant to be modelled after Jesus? I have seen too many intelligent, gifted people sell themselves short because of the religious conviction that Jesus was the absolute model and standard for gauging humility, service, love, faith, etc....
I believe that the scholarly debate on whether Jesus existed or not is an important one. One bases their understanding on history, and the other bases their understanding of myth. History is the area of the real world, where myth is the arena of "representations" and "ideals". Leadership is the area of historical influence and important impact for change, whereas, representations are the people who represent the ideals in character and do these historical works to bringing change in the world.
The Cross, which has represented the sacrifice of Christ, has been a universal symbol for Christians. The cross in its representative form symbolizes the costs of developing the gifts that are necessary for becoming who we are meant to be and what we are meant to do. That cannot be determined by another, but ourselves alone.
"Lordship", Discipleship, and Faith
Christians have defined their faith in many ways, and the implications upon their lives was the result. "Worldviews" within Christendom have attached to them certain expectations, and understandings of itself and those who are intiated by the indoctrination of these traditions within the Christian Church understand the mores, customs and traditions that are implied. These are absolutized views of faith based on Scripture. Those who are not and are not submissive nor teachable are doomed to suffer consequences, as their views are absolute, but do not allow diversity in viewpoint.
I just read where a certain "Name" of an evangelical/fundamentalist leader of "lordship" teaching was based on a nominalistic faith without true discipleship. I disagree, as not only have I read his book (many years ago), have family who attended his seminary, and a friend's whose mother's church was split over the "lordship" teaching...but I think that any faith has an understanding of itself and a resulting expected behavioral "standard"...
The problem with any "lordship" theology is who determines what behavior and by what standard is a life measured? The Pharisees, during Jesus day, had certain purity standards that were specified, so that the behavior could be judged. Jesus, acted in an unconventional way according to their standards. Jesus morality was outside their box and this was the way that his life has led to a higher development of understanding morality. But, his life is not the only moral model.
Lordship can be viewed by many different standards, such as one's dress, custom, behavior, beliefs about ethical views, laws, etc....conformity is the name of the game for those within these types of environments. Questions are not appreciated, in fact, may be the very behavior that subjects one to shunning, criticism or rebuke. Authority's power is mandated by the leadership and judged as the necessary stated or implied behavior...this is the standard within the sect.
Most conservatives work within a conventional frame of reference, whether the authority comes from a written texts, or annointed leaders who speak, and judge for the people, even outside their borders. This attitude breeds prejuidice and unenlightened view, and limits the young in their intellectual development and interests. Some things are just not allowed as vocations within these traditions.
Our democracy allows freedom of speech, which allows questions, discovery, and journeying toward a larger view, a greater good, a more enlarged way of thinking than local and provincial ways of thinking and behaving. The world is too complex to describe in one demension. In our physical reality, we can only take in three demensions whereas, there are many more demensions that we can't "see". but are only understood by higher mathmatics...The order and structure of the world is a mystery which lives beyond reason, and yet is reasonable...Lordship theology and thinking describes faith and discipleship in only a certain way and by a certain standard and moral model...
I just read where a certain "Name" of an evangelical/fundamentalist leader of "lordship" teaching was based on a nominalistic faith without true discipleship. I disagree, as not only have I read his book (many years ago), have family who attended his seminary, and a friend's whose mother's church was split over the "lordship" teaching...but I think that any faith has an understanding of itself and a resulting expected behavioral "standard"...
The problem with any "lordship" theology is who determines what behavior and by what standard is a life measured? The Pharisees, during Jesus day, had certain purity standards that were specified, so that the behavior could be judged. Jesus, acted in an unconventional way according to their standards. Jesus morality was outside their box and this was the way that his life has led to a higher development of understanding morality. But, his life is not the only moral model.
Lordship can be viewed by many different standards, such as one's dress, custom, behavior, beliefs about ethical views, laws, etc....conformity is the name of the game for those within these types of environments. Questions are not appreciated, in fact, may be the very behavior that subjects one to shunning, criticism or rebuke. Authority's power is mandated by the leadership and judged as the necessary stated or implied behavior...this is the standard within the sect.
Most conservatives work within a conventional frame of reference, whether the authority comes from a written texts, or annointed leaders who speak, and judge for the people, even outside their borders. This attitude breeds prejuidice and unenlightened view, and limits the young in their intellectual development and interests. Some things are just not allowed as vocations within these traditions.
Our democracy allows freedom of speech, which allows questions, discovery, and journeying toward a larger view, a greater good, a more enlarged way of thinking than local and provincial ways of thinking and behaving. The world is too complex to describe in one demension. In our physical reality, we can only take in three demensions whereas, there are many more demensions that we can't "see". but are only understood by higher mathmatics...The order and structure of the world is a mystery which lives beyond reason, and yet is reasonable...Lordship theology and thinking describes faith and discipleship in only a certain way and by a certain standard and moral model...
Politics and Evangelicalism
This morning while listening to NPR, an evangelical woman was interviewed. I was embarassed. Besides, using "spiritual terminology", she was ill-informed and the things she was informed about were stated in a way that was oblivious to "another side". It was black and white thinking and it does nothing toward representing what is sensible. Theological jargon is unecessary, it does nothing to "enhance" the Christian image in the public square, I really wondered if this interview was aired to "reveal" what evangelicals are really about. Which is faith without reason!!! I am embarassed and think just until the past several years, I have also been ill-informed as to the world's affairs. Does becoming a "world citizen" mean that one enters the human race and then starts caring beyond our locally defined religious communities? I'm talking about in our thinking. Theology unless connected to the real world, means nothing to anyone other than those that have you specific bias. You might as well speak in a foreign language! I am hoping on doing some "catching up"!!
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
One Last Post for Today on Love
Love has been defined in many ways. The religious describe is a self-sacrificial, while the psychologist define it with commitment. Commitment is how I would rather describe love, as commitment is about relationship and relationship is about healthy self and other identities. Otherwise, self-sacrifice will describe love by power, which is self-serving to one (even altruistic goals and purposes) and self annihlation to the other.
I believe that healthy relationships are mutual. If there is no mutuality because of a lack of trust, for whatever reason, then there is social contract, or treaty that defines what the behavior is to be toward the other. These treaties, or social contracts define the terms of the relationship, thus protecting each partie's rights and legally binding the other to faithfulness to contract.
In Christian terms, as in some ancient cultures and tribal cultures, covenant is a useful term. This term is a "blood term", as tribal mentalities are not based on an understanding of even-handed exchange, but a limitation of "tribalistic" blood-shedding. These understanding take life and disregard respect for boundary markers and proper behavior, which is defined by "law".
Love must be defined in individual terms, as there is no other way to love, really. That is, if we believe that the individual is made unique and valuable in their own right, apart from any usefulness or purpose of a group, whether religious, tribal or organizational structure...
Love really sees the other, respects the other, as different, and responds to the other's need(s). This is what Christianity should be about, not tribalism as defined by ancient understandings of covenant and blood sacrifices...
Faith should be about freedom of life and personal purpose, as all of life is gifted by grace and love. It is entering into the "rest" that is meant to bring peace of heart and life, because one feels he has found "home" and that home is what he, himself, was all along. It is true self-acceptance, so it is not about performing, and perfection, but about "rest".
Job found this to be true, as he understood while those around him were judging his every action, and he felt "justified" in conscience, that grace is really what life is about....grace means that God exists beyond our comprehension of him, but that by our gratefulness for our lives, he becomes more meaningful, as life is graced...and gifted...and important...
I believe that healthy relationships are mutual. If there is no mutuality because of a lack of trust, for whatever reason, then there is social contract, or treaty that defines what the behavior is to be toward the other. These treaties, or social contracts define the terms of the relationship, thus protecting each partie's rights and legally binding the other to faithfulness to contract.
In Christian terms, as in some ancient cultures and tribal cultures, covenant is a useful term. This term is a "blood term", as tribal mentalities are not based on an understanding of even-handed exchange, but a limitation of "tribalistic" blood-shedding. These understanding take life and disregard respect for boundary markers and proper behavior, which is defined by "law".
Love must be defined in individual terms, as there is no other way to love, really. That is, if we believe that the individual is made unique and valuable in their own right, apart from any usefulness or purpose of a group, whether religious, tribal or organizational structure...
Love really sees the other, respects the other, as different, and responds to the other's need(s). This is what Christianity should be about, not tribalism as defined by ancient understandings of covenant and blood sacrifices...
Faith should be about freedom of life and personal purpose, as all of life is gifted by grace and love. It is entering into the "rest" that is meant to bring peace of heart and life, because one feels he has found "home" and that home is what he, himself, was all along. It is true self-acceptance, so it is not about performing, and perfection, but about "rest".
Job found this to be true, as he understood while those around him were judging his every action, and he felt "justified" in conscience, that grace is really what life is about....grace means that God exists beyond our comprehension of him, but that by our gratefulness for our lives, he becomes more meaningful, as life is graced...and gifted...and important...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
