Let's Get Ugly

Ugly is only understood by some standard. And standards are defined by whatever "standard" the culture agrees upon. This is a cultural "norm". And cultural norms help to maintain social order. Social order is good for society's functioning, so that people can live in "peace".

Our nation of laws provide the standards that represent good leadership, as leaders should obey the law. And the law protects us from "invasions" of different kinds; invasions of privacy (identity), invasions of property (trespassing), for example. We are a people that believe in "equality under law". Therefore, we "trust" that others will respect the law and not trespass, but acknowledge and accept the social contract.

Some, though use the law to their advantage. These are ugly people. They lack character because they do invade, but in a "legal way". I do not respect, nor should anyone else respect such leadership.

Those who do evil should be held accountable by any means available, as they should learn that these invasions are never to be overlooked, but learned from. Power does not affirm others in lawlessness.

But, just as those who use the law for their advantage, those who revolutionize also do. These are the ones who have made history in challenging the status quo. The revolutionary understand that there is a higher principle that must be maintained, otherwise others will suffer under invasions of the ugly. These are the rights of individual liberties that protect invasions of personhood.

A gentler and kinder way, is the way of reform. Reformers work within the system to make it change, without upsetting the whole social order.

One must decide whether the ugly is worth fighting, forsaking, or furthering in a different way. The choice and decision must be a personal commitment of value and vision, as one will pay a cost, whichever way one chooses to change evil into good.

Equal

Our thinking is influenced by many factors. What we are exposed to, what interests us, and what values are of most importance influence how we understand and 'put together' our realities. These underlying issues also affect and influence what we choose to read, and educate ourselves and how we understand this information within the context of other understandings in our "world" (reality). So, thinking and one's understanding and commitment to one's values, is a life-long process. One should remain open to new information, as long as one lives.

I have many times underlined our "equal before law" value, here in America. But, the value of "equal", must also understand complementary. We do complement one another when we are open to discussion, dialogue, and defense of our opinions, commitments and values. All of us have something to bring to the 'table" for the whole of society and its betterment.

This got me thinking about marriage. Marriage is a social contract between two people, who decide to commit to one another and share their lives. The religious like to term the agreement as "covenant", as they view the commitment as "an agreement before God", while secularists like to affirm the voluntary nature of the "contract" and its dissolvability. We can agree to disagree about the definitions and understanding of what marriage is about.

But, what should be of value and importance is what constitutes the "best" for society? This is where the social sciences, not just religious convictions, help us to form a better "world". We should listen to what social science has to say, so that we will not be boondoggling our future as a society. Religion can have a voice, if they remain open, otherwise, they will be regulated to the "corner" where they wear a "dunce hat" and the "secularists" will dismiss them as irrelavant.

Religion is equal in the sense of "having a voice". But, it should not remain shrill, angry, prejuidiced, dismissive, condescending, certain, or arrogant. All of us have an opportunity to bring an enlargment of understanding if we agree to agree where we can, change what we see needs changing, and agreeing to disagree where we can't come to resolutions. This way our society, and culture at large can be what the Founders framed for us, "a unified diversity".

Other Racial Issues

Issues such as race have various emotional responses due to one's experience, understanding and conditioning. We, in America, have the "ideal" that all are created equal and should be represented by "law". These are citizen rights.

But, with today's climate of radicalization of religion, race seems to matter more. Americans and others in the West have experienced, and seen what happens to those who dismiss the danger of radical religion. So, in today's climate, we not only divide ourselves along racial lines, but religious ones, as well.

Just yesterday, a Muslim prindipal dismissed a Christian teacher. My husband told me that it was due to his Christian faith. Because Americans are "taught" that toleration is the highest virtue, we tend not to try to distinguish when we need to. Just as the lady who called the police was "at fault", even though she did what was reasonable and upheld the standards of good citzenship, Islam has a "favored" status when it comes to discrimination. And African Americans have favored status as it concerns Affirmative Action.

Minority rights grants a prividledge to those on the basis of their skin color or their religion. Is this just? When we try to rectify the past, are we harming the future and inadvertedly hindering all of us in being Americans, first? Why are we identifying ourselves as "African-American", "American Indian", or "American caucasian"? We are divided by "racial" and "religious" histories, instead of owning our national history and its development into a nation of diverse peoples, where the individual is acknowledged and valued. The Founding Fathers made our nation a nation ruled by law, and no "special elite", whether religious or racial. This is the freedom and value of being "equal under law".

Instead of identifying along the lines of "group think" which distinguishes what is uneccesary, why not distinguish ourselves as individual Americans? With America's ideals, and progressiveness, do we doubt that we could find a better tomorrow? We need to get back to thinking responsibly about our country and its values, not taking them for granted, but upholding the value of citizenship. And we need to be thankful for the freedoms and all that it allows in our diverse and blessed country.

"Racialized" America

America is known to be diverse in her cultural roots. This is what has made America great, because we have understood tolerance, for the most part. I know our history has contained a "dark" period where slaves were bought and sold, but we have overcome that time, or have we?

We know that America has its "passionate" differences, as otherwise, we would not believe in "free speech". The Klu Klux Klan and the Black Panthers have all "had some voice" in our public square.

This is what has baffled me in regards to the recent "racialization" incidence in Cambridge MA.

I had turned the news on to hear the woman who made the call to the police apologize for any "community upset" that might have occurred due to her call. What? All she did was call the police about a possible burgulary of a neighbor's property! And she was apologizing!!! I thought that we were to "be about community service", and yet, hers was not "approved".

The President responded by demonizing the police officier and the next day apologizing and announcing a meeting with the police officier and the professor involved. Why was the neighbor not called to the meeting? Was she, then considered the culprit? Was she the one being blamed, because she was "white" and her suspect was black?

I know when one has been victimized over a long period that it is hard to build trust. And when the experiences are continually affirmed and conditioned as justification for entitlement, then one wonders where the victim will become the victor. I am weary of this discussion. And it has led many, I believe, to not care.

Minority rights have reverse discrimination as far as I am concerned. The world we live in discriminates. That is how we make judgments and decisions, which are not always because of racial profiling, but because of necessity. The atmosphere has become so violatile that one is "gun shy" for fear of mis-stepping. Who will be offended, and what will be the "costs"?

Although I am glad that we are diverse in our culture, there is a price to pay and the one we have just seen played out before our eyes happens many times everyday around the country. I hope that in trying to rectify the wrongs of the past, we do not oversteer our "balance' and become intolerant to the Caucasions among us..

On "Knowing" and Government

We all like to think our opinion "matters" to someone and that our choices have impact and influence. That is, if we care to engage the world we live in. But, last night's movie, "Knowing", did not have that "take".

"Knowing" presented a world whose "accidents" were "pre-determined" and known by a troubled young girl. Nothing anyone seemed to do to stop these "predictions" helped as the "course was set".

Americans and those who live in free societies do not believe that "the course is set"in the details, but that there is a more or less "way to live and be in the world". We call the "ordered liberty". We believe that our vote "counts" and that our leaders "listen". And that we can choose our "own course" and our "own story" for our lives. We live in a free society.

The movie presented horrifying situations that "played out" before the main character, even when he was "trying to make a difference". This was just as de-humanizing as the former belief that the world was chaotic and things happened by "chance". Now, he was faced with a "world" that was computorized or "Calvinized".

The message, at least to me, was that the world is the way it is and our understanding of it is limited, though we attempt to "label" and understand the world. We live in paradigmic understandings and when these do not "work" we are baffled, as we cannot function without an understanding of some kind. Scientists have made their discoveries based on these "common physical laws".

But, higher mathmatics, and quantum theory stretches the imagination to understand one formula, as it seems to say that what we choose determines reality. That is different from theology's "foreknowledge of a Sovereign".

Our government does not intrude into its citizens private lives, and allows the individual the right to "live at peace", as long as he is "law-abiding". Some American Christians term this "God's Povidence", but do so without understanding the larger implications of that belief.

Those who live under dire circumstances, face horrendous tragedy, and unforseeable evil are not to be "pacified" with platitudes of "God's control and knowledge". The suffering do not nned theology, but solutions to their problems. And these solutions are political, as we live in a politicized world.

Healthcare

Obama has taken to the road again today to take his healthcare plan to the nation. While it is admirable to inform the American people, he seems evasive in some of the details of his "program". Why is he being evasive, when he seems to be so passionately commited to this proposal? Why are we being "pushed", and Congress, as well to pass this huge "project" without haveing all the information? Anyone would think this is unwise.

Healthcare is a major source of our nation's competitive and "leading edge" in the world. Why? Because we can give the best healthcare because of the competition of doctor's and scientist's salaries. We believe that if someone works longer to go to school, works harder at his job, deserves more "reward" in monetary gain. This is what has 'fed" those who have gone into medicine. That is not to say there are many, even most, that go into medicine to serve their fellow man. But, with the costs of medical school, not just financially, but socially, and emotionally, one would find it hard to justify the government "fixing salaries" for the "common good".

It is supposed that when the elderly or "end of life" issues face the doctor, then there will be "support" to face the "reality of death". While support is definately needed to face the "end of life", will the doctor be faced with the stark reality of what is of "costs benefit". Won't this end up being the case? Life will be valued for its economy!

And yet, those who uphold the 'common good" say that "all people of the world" deserve quality of life, because "Evil American Imperialism" has preyed upon those less fortunate countries, because of corporate greed!

While America is not immune to "abuse of power", is it going to "fix" things worldwide to make all of humanity a commodity of "nature"? This is the result of globalism with evolutionary theory attached.

I don't know about you, but I fear for our future, while those in powerful positions "play" out the theories of Marx and Darwin, et al. Surely, there is a better way. But I just don't know what that is.

The Rule of Law, Positive or Negative?

Is the law to be a positive "force" that makes demands upon our behavior? Or is the law to limit behavior because of necessity?

I believe that limited government unlines the negative view, as I believe in "self-governance", where the individual is able to choose his own life within the confines of our diverse culture.

Today's government seems to deem it necessary to "demand"...more taxes, more subsidies, more public healthcare, more "public good". These demands limit the volitional. We become enslabed to government demands.

Some believe that this form of government is upholding "moral order" as it "takes care" of the poor, and disabled. But, does it? Aren't those in power still living as they always have, while demanding a limitation, even a "sacrifice" on the average person'a part? This is immoral, if you ask me!

I think it undermines civil liberites to make demand. And civil liberites are what is garuanteed in our Constitutional government.