Religion Set Itself Apart

Religion is man's attempt to to 'be special" and not just the result of evolutionary "process". Human beings have always attempted to "set themsevles apart" for some "special purpose".

The human need to "be special" could come from many factors, but we all need to be valued in one way or another, unless life itself is devalued by one's culture. What "inspired" people to create a "more meaningful experience" than barbarianism? Some would want to believe that is is because of "god".

"God" has been useful to create meaning to life, give priority of value, and bring about an 'order'. But, these functons of "god" have been based on different authorial sources. The Calvinist based his understanding on supernaturalism or revelatory texts, while the naturalist, liberal, or Catholic bases his understanding on natural law, order and structure, which is based on reason.

The Founders understood man's need for order and structure, but also understood the need for a freedom to express diversity. Diversity or difference is not applauded in caste, or aristocratic systems of government, as these are controlled by the "ruling elite", where change itself is understood in negative ways. Change can happen in a democracy or representative republic by the people's vote, lobbyist, courts, and public dissent through the press, or demonstration.

Religion does not value the individual for the most part, as it affirms conformity, and is threatened by dissent, and questions. Religion, in this sense, is an aristocracy, whether one believes that "God" rules, the cleric/priest, the text, or the congregation. An individual is at the whim of whatever "authority is affirmed".

Questions and Quandaries About Faith and Reason

It has been a number of years since I sat in or read my husband's course on Science and Faith, as it affects society. He won a John Templeton award for it a number of years ago. So, I don't remember many details, as I have been doing my own thinking and coming to terms with faith and reason.

I think coming to terms with one's faith, is addressing many issues that concern one personally, as well as the meaning of these concepts. How these all "fit together" is a quadmire of "mystery", at least, to me.

I understand how our environments are "supposed" to affect us, but how is it possible to assess that each and every individual processes information the same way? There are so many variables concerning our choices, understandings, and the prioritizing our values.

I think that if I spent the rest of my life trying to understand this subject, I would never exhaust the subject, but possibly I would exhaust myself. But, isn't the pursuit of truth what man was made to pursue? The reality is that it takes courage to face what one thought was "real and true" and universal is somehow questioned and questionable. This is the way of learning, and growing and enlarging oneself, so that one can "be" and "become".

I do agree that one's faith "fills in gaps" in a person's psychological make-up, if one has not been brought up to identify with a certain tradition. The basic needs of man are understood and met within the different frames of of understanding. This is where the psychology of religion meets the philosophy of religion, as it answer the question of how one understands or comes to "faith", at least this is how I am thinking it 'happens".

We all have early images that make up the meaning of life. These images are represented by "words". And since our experiences with these images and thier meanings have different understandings, depending on our "connections", then we react or respond differently to the same stimuli.

Reason understands things in "flat language", or "one dimensional language", as each discipline is "one language among many" and each language, even within a discipline has many "languages". It has almost become impossible to communicate between the specialties because of the difference of focus of the discipline.

Understanding an individual takes a lifetime, as any married person knows. There are so many aspects to the personhood of the person, that is negated and missed when one trivializes "meaning" and value. This is why it is so hard to bring about reconciliation between those that see things so differently, as each has their own reality and to deny that reality, is to deny a basic tenet that makes up their personhood and identity. But, how in the name of "reality" or "real history" is there to be a reasonable resolution to those who insist the Holocost did not happen. Or we ask those who have been denied a voice in their life to deny their very "need" for a voice, to deny it for the other? This is human cruelty, and yet, the world must function on some basis of understanding in formulating foreign and domestic policy.

I have found that the questions and quandaries are greater than any answer where it concerns faith and reason. But, it is a fascinating endeavor to pursue "truth" anywhere one finds it.

In the Place I Am...

In the place I am, I find that meaning is "what one makes it". There is no universal meaning, as we are individually, and contextually different. What I have to share, is not "gospel" truth, but truth for me that I seek to understand in a broader way.

I used to think that there was a distinct difference in "spiritual" things. There were spiritual truths, spiritual values, spiritual disciplines, spiritual understanding, spiritual revelation, and spiritual people or spiritual leaders. I have come to understand that there is not such distinction. Why?

Spiritual means that there is something distinctly different about something, whether a person, truth, or discipline. The transcendent means, by definition, that it transcends understanding, therefore, we do not know about that realm, only this realm of reality, truth, character, or leadership, as all truth is God's and serving in the real realm is serving God.

Humans are created to develop and they develop according to the environments and natural propensities that they have. Whether one believes in God or not, there are concerns about our world that affects us all. Therefore, all humans should work together to understand, first what the problems are, prioritize the problems and seek solutions. The difficulty is that there are so many problems and different ways of approaching the problems that humans find it hard to find solution due to the politics involved. The answer is not to limit information to the populace, so that the elite can "have their way", before the "morons" know what is going on. This kind of leadership would be acting in arrogance and not respecting the dignity of the American poplace.

Humans have values in and of themselves, that is if we believe that our own life is or should be of value. Therefore, we should recognize that suppressing infomation in the name of the "common good", may miss opportunities for some that might be of utmost importance to address the issues at hand. This attitude, besides being arrogant, is overt discrimnation. I do recognize that the ones that have the education should be the ones that are pivotal in addressing the problems. This is why I find it hard to believe that we will elect representatives that have little or no experience, or little education, to boot, to represent our interests. I really wonder how much really gets done by the freshman politician, as he/she must be mentored and initiated into the "system" before their voice really counts.

I don't mean to sound cynical, as I believe that our country's form of government is the best form ever imagined upon earth. And I believe that those who serve in public office are due respect for thier position and gratitude from those of us who have elected them. Our ingratitude should come primarily at the voting booth and expressing our opinion in open forum, whether through informal means, such as the internet, or formal means such as one's profession.

I appreciate the time and effort that goes into these public jobs and I wonder how many of us really understand the pressures, challenges, and time consumption that these jobs require? Many of us put in similar circumstances would not hold up under the intense pressure or scrutiny of such voyuerism of the American public.

I question many of the policies of our leaders today, but I want to take this opportunity to applaud them for serving us, at least in "ideal" and hopefully, in reality.

God bless America.

What Are You Afraid Of?

I am sure that anyone who knows me, knows that I do not want to be controlled, as I value freedom. But, doesn't everyone value freedom? If we allow others the same freedom we would want, we do to them as we would want done to ourselves. This is fultilling the Golden Rule.

But, some are fearful that if they do not control others, then they will not "fulfill" their ultimate purpose(s). These have depended on others to carry out their "vision". While others are necessary to carry out any plan that is greater than "self-improvement", people have to co-operate, which means that they must believe in the "vision" and are committed to helping carry out the vision.

One of the signs of a great leader is inspiring others, not just initially, but when the going gets tough, to hang in there and not "bail out". But, leaders should always be open to new information or input from others, as those who are affected bythe vision should have a "voice" in their "life choices" and commitments. Good leaders are not offended or angry over criticism, as they desire to get a broader picture of the problem, so encouraging as many voices as possible is desired and really necessary. The more voices that are heard, the more likely problems will be alleviated.

Fear can be alleviated by information, as everyone grasps their "part" as they have committed to "vision". Our liberal democracy allows many avenues to fulfill one's duty, life purpose, or "vision". So, in our liberal democracy there should be no fear, but fear itself.

The Individual As the Epitome of the "Ideal"

Just recently, I used the Trinity as a model of our government's form. Jesus was the legislative branch as he represented the people before the executive and made the rules., as well as fulling the 'law" (rules). The "holy spirit" was the judicial branch, as this branch interprets the law practically and specifically. The "spirit" of the individual is where they must understand how they will apply just issues to their life. But, religious leaders love to interpret the law for another and tell them how to apply it correctly. Leadership of this kind brings ultimate oppression, rather than freedom for the individual to become and to be. This is where damage occurs to the individual and the true intent of the "law".

Our country values freedom of the individual because the individual is made in God's image, not the "group'. Moral development, intellectual development, and faith development are all aspects of the whole person.

While the judicial branch is how the law is interpreted by the holy spirit to the individual in faith development. It is understood that the symbols and meaning of religion is understood in individualized ways. Certainly, context is important in an individual's understanding, and this is why the individual will understand their faith within different paradigms. Faith in the symbols, which represent something that point beyond themselves to something that is beyond the symbol and the context of the individual.

The legislative branch understands how these "rules" as interpreted by the judicial branch in faith development, will be understood in living out life in this world. This is the practical work of moral development, where "tradition" is not the ultimate, but the world at large.

But, the intellectual development is the executive branch of how the person chooses or commits to their understanding of the "rules" in their life. Intellectual development is where the life of the individual becomes a broader or wider "vision" of oneself and the world that God created. Learning is not the enemy but the friend of one that is really walking in faith. Intellectual development comes to realize that the "rights and wrongs" of "tradition" and even a certain political persuasion, all have their limitations, as reason itself is limited. The individual is not omniscient, so the individual must "play out his life" in an arena of some kind. These are personal commitments and personal values, that the indivdual finds of most importance.

So, a fully developed person has come to understand the complexity of moral issues that face social situations, and they become committed to seeking justice in those specifed areas that ultimately concern them (the disciplines). This is what life calling and leadership is about. And it is the call of the university to develop the student in a full way, so that they can have the opportunity to understand the vastness of issues, and purposes that their life could 'impact".

Just Thinking About....Torture

On Richard Beck's blog site, he is talking about tortue. Is torture right or wrong, and how do we understand our position?

Just recently it has been discussed whether the Bush adminstration should be held accountable to the torture of suspected criminals. The CIA was absolved, but certain lawyers who represented the Bush adminstration may be held accountable to providing a legal means to torture these suspects.

Again, the issue of sovereignty and law, is the "problem". Is our country a sovereign over its interests where it concerns national security? Or is universal human rights as defended by international interests of more importance? Where do self interests protect freedoms, and where do they deter international "peace"? Where do ignoring rights of individual suspects undermine human rights? And where does America have a right to defend its security and help the world defend freedom abroad, while sometimes furthering injustice in specific situations? This is certainly an imperfect and complex world.

Obama has released certain CIA tactics or torture, disregarding CIA concerns of releasing this "classifed" information. Obama is making a heroic attempt at internationalizing our coutnry.

But, what happens to the "law" if there is no balance of power? If Obama suceeds in prosecuting those who differ with him in interpreting the law, while keeping the "other voices' silent in the Congress and the media, suppressing information to the people. America will be changed without most of us even being aware!

I have written about my concerns of the U.N. before on this blog site. There is an attempt to give developing nations more of a voice. But, if these countries are barbaric in their understanding of government, then at what costs will our world pay? Those who think in terms of tribes, and people groups have not developed the individual's identity so that education and the market, and the econcomies can become what America's has been. Those who think in tribalistic ways are loyal to religious conviction. And when religious conviction is understood to be involved in the political realm, then, the world will be "at war" because politicized religion is a danger, as history has often illustrated!

I am afraid that just as in any organizational structure, there have to be those that are "foot soldiers" to carry out the vision or plan of the adminstration or leadership. If the world is one big organization, and everyone is to have equal opportunity, then who are the "foot soldiers" (nations that are to be the "underdogs")? And how is leadership to be decided upon and how are the laws against neopotism to be upheld? And how is leadership to be accountable? ETC. There are many kinks in the garment without us understanding the garments "wash and wear" directions. What if the garment "shrinks", or "becomes stretched beyond fitting for its purpose"? These are real economic, political, governmental, leadership questions.

Hopefully, most of us will not live in a tortuous situation without recourse, or resolution, while the ship is sailing on open waters, with little or no rudder and no map in view!

Obama's State

It is pretty well established by those that believe that "big government" is not the "way to go", that Obama wants an "Obama State".

Obama wants to expand the energy program without even having the technology developed, so that we will not be dependent on foreign sources, as well as protect the environment. There is certainly nothing wrong with the reasons, but the policy needs to be clearly thought out, without seeming urgency, which this adminstration seems to be doing with every public policy that comes up "for grabs".

In Congressional hearings, Al Gore, said that it would cost the taxpayer about 30cents a day for this energy program, to which Newt Gingrich replied that the figures were misguided and misleading. Even if the figures are correct, we are talking about $400 per year for a family of 4!

Not only is the energy bill being negotiated, but healthcare is of urgent importance. Obama wants a plan like Europe's. This universal healthcare is not known to give the best most efficient care. A friend of mine has a sister in Germany, and my husband's family lives in the Netherlands. Both have had to wait to get medical care that was necessary. Why? Because when people do not have to pay, then they are more likely to take advantage of that with more doctors visits, that would have probably been delayed had they had to pay out of their own pockets!

Why is there such urgency to "take care of the major portions of our economy? Is Obama afraid, that his popularity will go down and he won't be able to get his policies implemented?

Or is he afraid that by the next election, the Republicans will hold more strength of numbers, because the American people will vote with their feet?

It seems that some of the GM plants that are having to "cut back" are being politicized. The Republican states are the ones chosen, as the "cut backs" will be unpopular, and then the Republican Congressmen will be blamed...and Obama will maintain a Democratic majority to carry out his revolutionary agenda!

I find it hard to think that we will be able to recover some of the lost ground! It angered me to hear them tout how much it was costing us in future generations to not address the environmental issues! AND THE STIMULUS BILL WAS NOT GOING TO EFFECT THE NEXT GENERATION IN ANY NEGATIVE SENSE!! That is lunacy!

I wonder what we can do and wish my husband and I were still in D.C. so we could be better informed and involved in making a difference for the sake of our country.