The Principles of a Free Society!

Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights


Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness — Principles of a Free Society

principlesofafreesociety.com

To Those That Believe........

Those that believe are defined by their various religious contexts and these contexts are defined by "holy books" and "holy people". Men always seem to like to follow the leader. The difference in a free society, is that one can choose which leader one will follow. That is key to understanding our political freedoms; Choice as an ultimate value for defining one's life.

Some think that since leaders are called to lead, then those who are to follow must do so without question, as "fate" is "God's will" and it shows deference to "God" and Others in whatever happens.

Such a sermon I heard recently, that admonished the believer to have personal faith and to do their disciplines in secret, not as the hypocrits do. The preacher admonished the flock that God knows and sees, so we don't have to perform or please others. We are only to please God. This is good advice to those that choose to believe, otherwise, people will continually be playing to those that have power, so they can get to the top. In the process, they step on another's toes, so to speak and disorder of all kinds occurs! It is human nature to pursue one's own interests and such as it should be, as long as it is done within the bounds of lawful behavior.

To those that believe, I have hope that you will not allow others to trample your life under their cloven hooves. I hope to see you resist those that are such "pigs". I don't believe in pacifism. I think that thinking that passive good with overcome agressive evil is hopelessly naive! But, I have watched and read about such "saints", but question if this is to be a norm for change? Certainly, those in power would want passivity as it concerns resistance, that way, they can continue in their abuse without any recrimnations. (Our country would have never had a war over taxation without representation, if that had been their perspective!)...

Passivity toward unjust circumstances speaks of character, because these have to practice "self-control" and humility and such character had Jesus, who represents the "ultimate Chrstian model". I don't respect scapegoating, sabatoging another's life, etc.And this is what actually happened according to the text. And those that believe in a historical Jesus must adhere to such religious practices and beliefs.

 How can  believers think that his life was the epitome of "morality", because he overcame evil with good? How did his life represent the "ideal" for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? It did because he was subservient to his "Father". Subservient and passive enough to face death on a cross, the Christian symbol!! But, one can only believe that Jesus' life was an "ideal",  if they believe in a supernatural world to come where justice will be met out and all things restored and people will be rewarded accordingly. I wonder if the pastor meant that one should not seek to please "God"? No, because he said that this was man's purpose to "please God". But, I wonder then, if he meant we were to serve "God' unto death? That is the Christian belief? God wants our life sacrificed to "His Cause"! That sounds like an ogre to me!But, we are to love this demanding, controlling, and heartless God, because he loves us, personally. And the "sufferings of this present life will not be comparable to the glory that is to be revealed"!!  That is Church "speak" for the abuses of Church power.

But, believers believe that anyone who "looses his life for My Sake and the Kingdom, will be rewarded in the life to come".. Believers believe in a coming Judgment Day and some believe it will come soon on May 21st, just as believers have always looked and hoped for. Continue to believe, then, and give up your lives for others to trample under their feet. This is your "lot" in life and where you, "Fit"!...And continue to believe that 'God" deems it as "good to and for you", because he loves you!!!

Supenaturalism and Religion

I had a discussion with a friend on Facebook about her faith. She believes that her faith is not religion, but a real experience of the transcendent. These experiences are supernatural, by all accounts to religionists, as they see the world and explain it in terms of religious ideology, or "God". Why would I not think that there interpretation is the best?

First and foremost, man/men all have a need to understand. Different men have different interests in how they seek to understand, nowadays, with all the differences in the disciplines. But, primitive man understood the world in a primitive way. The Sun was worshipped and different gods controlled different aspects of nature. Religion is man's attempt to explain the natural world. But, there is also the aspect where religion seeks to explain "Man". The Church sought to impact religion by explaining that man's experience was "under a curse" until man believed in some sort of "God" that would "save" or "redeem" man from his "bad experiences". This si the Church's teaching on sanctification, where man learns from his experiences, becasue "God" is "training" him. God has become personalized in history though the Church's story of the redemption of the disempowered..  This is the Church's /fundamental stance toward world history. World history is "God's story", and his revealing of "His Son", in his Bride, the Church. This is a transcendentalized type of secular humanism.

The differences to eschatology lies in the different understandings of "what is to happen" or "what is to come". Such differences have led to splits that created new denominations. Most still adhereing to a supernatural or transcendent view of life and all that is.

This Facebook friend is like many who believe that their faith makes some sort of difference in how they understand their lives. I think this is true, as men also seek to put their life into a particular context. These contexts are identfying factors, as we all need identity. The question is whether we think man is solely formed by such associations. Certainly, our associations do influence and form us, but it doesn't mean that we always accept their understanding, ways, or values, as we get to be adults, or we form a more critical eye toward evaluating life. Whenever we do start to critically evaluate life, then we come to a place where we, as an individual, make a choice about our values and commitments. These are ulitmate values that one doesn't want to compromise on/about. These define "who we are" in ourselves, not who we are because we like the group we are in. And this is when we choose where we will commt.

I don't like religious groups because they all too often define things without allowing for diversity. This is what separates denominations. And I don't value those that are certain of their claims about the transcendent realm, because it is presumptive to assume. Many who do accept the claims to a transcendent realm are those that base their understandings on a religious group (Roman Cahtolicism, Greek Orthodoxy, or some esoteric cult) and/ or on a "Holy Text", which is held as the defining of life. Such a view limits or defines man, without understanding the indivdiual and the complexities to and about life.

So, I don't think one can separate faith and relgions, though the Pietists and the existentialist might like to do so. This would breed a world where religious authorities could define and demand certain behavior for the 'greater good". Such authoritarial structuring is not about the individual's right to life and liberty, but a collective understanding of what life "Should" be about. And don't we all know what "shoulds" do to man? "Shoulds" are about obligations and duty; not liberty of conscience. Although we all have obligations and duties, none of us would want our lives under the control of another's expectations, which intrude upon one's personal life. These like to use the law as a weapon to subvert liberty, instead of using the law to grant equal liberty. But, all of us must determine where we will draw our lines around liberty, as we must, if we define at all, which we must, if we have identity at all. Should we want  an authoritarian whether  an individual or group of people, to come  into power, so all of us will be conformed to their understanding of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

The Plurality of Voices in American Society and the Autonomy of "Self"

Many have been seeking a resolution to the political conflicts we experience in today's world. When the world is smaller due to Internet connections and trade is free, nuclear arms and ideologies still plague the landscape and inhibit world peace.

America's Founders understood the need for the balance of power. Although their views were dominated by Newton's paradigm and Christian/Jewish understandings of "Providence", today, the world isn't as simply explained. "Providence" is not accepted, when "the world's" story isn't one that is explained by "ideal dreams or hopes" of "the human/humane". And Newton's paradigm isn't universally accepted as THE paradigm to explain human reality.  History was understood in America as "God's story" as revealed in the Christian "Christ". The Jewish Scriptures were the context of "storying" the Christian message. But, such "messages" appeal to the "ideals" of our Founder's vision of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They were never meant to describe the "real or political" one. The story of Jesus was never intended to be historicized as a political goal, upon individuals, but as a moral ideal of a universal value, a value of "the human/humane". The Jew was the useful "tool" of forming the value of valuing the oppressed, or de-valued.

Politics seeks to address problems, and strategic planning about furthering goals of the politically empowered. The Founders, though empowered, never sought to subvert the individual's claim about his own life. The Founder's understood that society needed to function in an orderly way, but did not attempt to order it in a way that oppressed the individual's right of choice and value.

Though science has discovered much more to "life" than Newton's cause and effect, the political realm is still most effective when it is ordered after our Founder's vision of balancing and separating power. That way, the individual, no matter where they are on the spectrum of human development (intellectual, moral, or faith) or values of priority and understanding (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) can find/make their place in society, without oppressive domination by poltical or religious zealotry. Our society was meant to be a "civil one".

Political power that allowed autonomy and religious liberty, within the bounds of law, were the "ideals" of our free society. Americans should always value and take part in their country's "ideals" furthering the goals that are important to them, personally, because America will only survive when individuals take their personal values/ideals seriously and get involved in the political process. At the same time, free persons should also understand that others are free to disagree, under the "canopy of plural voices" that "speak" in our "political environment" without threatening with poltical domination, whether through nucelar arms, or legal manipulation.

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.

Christianity Is Dead

Christianity is dead, at least my husband read something this morning that made him question me. I told him about the discussions going on  in the blogospehere and how many books were out about the "death of Christianity". Why is Christianity or religion dying? And does it matter?

Some have suggested that the death of Christianity has come about because the social needs of our population has gotten met through the social media. People have contact at anytime and anywhere these days. So, why go to church to find a place to be affirmed?This is the challenge of "belonging".

Others have suggested that the theology of the Church just doesn't measure up to our scientific knowledge these days. How can one believe that Jesus rose from the dead, or that people can do miracles? These are fairy tales, or myths that make life more bearable, when life is hard. This is the challenge of belief.

Still, some have sought to re-frame theology so that the Church is more "up to date". These have reframed "God" himself, as a process, a becoming, or our experience itself is "god in the making". God is the Present, "I Am" and incorporates all of reality (panentheism). These are not orthodox views. This is the challenge of behavior.

Some have seen this challenge to Christian faith as a challenge to know what/where Christian faith began. These go into scholarly debates about Judean roots and what happened to the Arab. How did ethicities get defined? And what protects their identities. These are questions that serve the work of "peace". Because ethnic identities are what make for 'war'. This is an attempt to re-create a new political belief structure, so Man can understand himself as "human" and not by religous identifications or ethnic identities.

The Christian "end" has also been challenged. It used to be that Christianity understood itself historically. History was "God's history". The teleos of all history was the advent of "Christ" or the second coming. Traditional Christians still believe in a coming judgment, and heaven and hell. But, these also believe in a separate reality/realm, the spritual realm.

Christianity is dead for all practical reasons. But, maybe this is not so bad, as Christianity is about how one sees oneself and others, and rightly or wrongly, Christians see themselves as superior beings, because of their promised eternal life. They are prone to think that those without faith are to be pitied, as they are reprobate.

As an "outsider", Christians like to define themselves by their cateogories where they are the prime arbitrator of truth and values. They are confident that what they believe is absolute for everyone, everywhere. And this is where they miss the mark of finding themselves free from defining themselves by faith alone. What do they personally value apart from any religious claims, do they even know? Why do they value it?

This is my concern. Those that are religous are prone to judge without thinking. And they are prone to throw verses around as if life serves people "black and white" situations and circumstances". Everything is "nice and neatly" organized in their frame of reference and if others don't have themselves organized in such a way, they are a threat to society. While I do not doubt at ALL that organization and order is very important, humans are not commodities to be put in boxes or compartments that frame their lives apart from human contingencies.

Political parties organize their platforms simply. But reality gives politicians complex situations to face. These situations challenge their political promises, because politics serves out contingencies too. We can't control what another country does or doesn't do, ultimately. We can co-operate, negotiate, or sanction, bomb or bring out the troops. But, are we different from those that also seek to have a life?

 Government itself is a form of order/structure that seeks to circumvent what is of value. Free societies allow liberty where it concerns human life. Dictators, authoritarian power structures are those that believe that "order" should not be horozonally controlled, but hierarchally. These claim power for themselves, and some do it in the "name of God". This is why those that believe that "God" is not just an idea in one's mind, but a real reality are dangerous to our liberties. But, then, the religious are also Americans, and it is important that they also have a voice.

One thing for sure, humans are a diverse species. We are not clones of one another, though there are similarities in what we desire, how we define that in our lives is vastly different in a free society! And certainly, government is made to prevent desires from running over another's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!

Choice, Responsibility, and Negotiation

Choice is an ultimate value for any human, as choice values differences as to value and interests. Responsibility is about owning the consequences for one's choices and negotiating with others about differences of value or commitments. All of society's relationships should be based upon the individual right of choice.

Negotiation is about compromise, and determining whether such compormise is possible in relationship. Negotiation is part of the process of evaluating priorites as to commitments and values. In political terms, it is knowing that one might not have an "ideal" value upheld, but knowing that living in a free society doesn't affim "ideals" as defined, otherwise, the society will not be free as to diversity of definitions".

The Founders were "Wise", not "ideologues"! Wisdom means that they knew that government had to limit itself, so the individual can have the liberty to define their own "ideals". The Founders "ideals" of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was based on the understanding of "Providence", or in today's terms, leadership. Leaders do determine and define what these ideals mean in, to and for society.

Liberals value "civil rights" or the "real world", while the conservative values "traditional values" and the "ideal world". Both have a place in our society, as to America's values, because we do affirm the family, as well as indivdiual equality before the law. America does value pragmatism and science, but we also value religious liberty. The disagreement comes from re-defining certain aspects of society. Such social change is viewed byt the liberal as a necessary right to continue to maintain the value of "equality before the law". But, the conservative views such social change as a violation of traditional principles, which might undermine society's foundations. Such differences were the basis of our Civil War.

Each side has valid points. Social change has occurred and will continue to occur, but we must not loose the values of tradition that have underwritten our society. It is just a matter, hopefully, of listening, weighing, negotiating, and coming to terms. This is responsible leadership. And it is what America needs most right now! Fair and balanced!

The Fear of God is the Beginning of Wisdom...

The book of Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. It is located in the books of wisdom. In the book of Job, there is a verse, "The Fear of God is the BEGINNING of WISDOM".

I used to read this verse as, " The Fear of God is the Beginning of wisdom"..

The emphasis on the former is that one has to fear God to even begin to understand. Such are the supernaturalists in their understanding of text and tradition and life, itself!

But, now, I understand that it means fearing "God" is Just the Beginning of Wisdom. Wisdom is practical knowledge about life throught experience, not knowledge about "God" and the supernatural.

This latter understanding is more in line with the original Jewish understanding. Wasn't it Job who suffered under the hands of those who thought they know what "God" wanted, and knew what God was doing in Job's life?

What did Job learn? Didn't Job learn that the whole creation was a mystery and that life was a gift to be lived in the present and be grasped by an awe inspiring worship?

Job's "answer" was not about a "how to", or answers the text has to offer, but life itself.

Life is hard, at times. It behooves all of us to understand that we shouldn't lay undue burdens upon others backs by being like Job's comforters.

(But, for the sake of balance, one cannot live without understanding what they will value, as this is the "stuff" where one's commitments will be. The Supernaturalists just believe that "God" should be their life commitment.)

The Atheist and Moral Virtue

In my last post on the "Church Justifies the Moral Ought", I made a statement that got me thinking along the lines of atheistice morality. The statement was, " Evolution does not grant that life begins at conception, but at choice. Choice is the determinitive "end" of morality. The individual must choose how he will live his life."

Moral choice is the ulitmate value for the atheist. Therefore, the atheist would agree that the child needs superintending influences in his/her life. And the child comes to an age of accountability when he/she has develope the ability to make responsible choices. Responsible choices define "moral virtue".

I would ask, then, what are we responsible for? Are we are responsible for others? Or are we responsible for ourselves? This is where political views about the place of government, law, and society become debates about what "should" define a particular society! This is the level of policy debate. And it is the place of interest for those that want to be good citizens!

The Atheist allows for liberty of conscience regarding diversity of values, if they are consistent with thier value of "moral choice", as being of ultimate value to/for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, for all citizens!