This morning while looking over a blog I follow, I noticed a response that was really an attack. As I read the response, I couldn't help but think that this person's opinion was a personal attack hidden behind the agenda of inhibiting "free speech". I was bewildered.
Free speech is a right in our country, as it is garuanteed in our Bill of Rights. It holds government accountable through investigative reporting in our news agencies. Those countries that do not allow freedom of speech (opinion) and propagate an agenda through the media are not free societies! We must stand for "free speech".
One aspect of "free speech" that has been questioned is: what constitutes discourtesy, "slander", and undermines our civil discourse? Much has been written and discussed about the issue. But, without full disclosure of information, the public is limited in their ability to judge, discriminate and assess what they believe. This is tragic, as it leaves those in power not just unaccountable, but enlarges their power base. Those who hold the reigns of leadership understand the power of the media, rhetoric, and "image".
While "image" and rhetoric can appeal to the public on a broad base and give a "good feeling" about our leaders, "image", "power", and "rhetoric" are not what leadership is about. Leadership is an ability to see the future with hope, not just for self-interest, but for the public's welfare. And good leaders know how to inspire, encourage, and equip those around them to be "all they can be", as well as listen and learn from others, themselves. Many leaders do not have the ability to listen, to learn, to grow, through learning about who or what they want to change. This is a tragedy, not just for the particular leader, but also for the leader's impact and outcomes.
This morning's encounter with another's dispute over "free speech" got me thinking about how much I embrace forthrightness, frankness, honesty, and courage to speak as one sees it. This is why I like to read and hear from the atheists or agnostic, as they arent' afraid of 'hurting others" so much as trying to grapple with the questions, and give answers about the world.
Those who adhere to learning in all areas are those that will be more likely open to hear another. It is only those whose eyes are focused on some "god-given" knowledge that supercedes any other knowledge that are dangerous, because they will not listen or learn from other arenas.
The West fights not just to preserve our right to free speech, which is enough, but our way of life, where each individual has an opportunity to explore, enlarge and grow in any direction, within the boundaries of law. I hope that we do not give up that right due to a tepid commitment to our government's values. This is why our conuntry is divided today. Those who are not tepid are passionate about protecting our values of freedom and individuality, but we disagree about how to go about it. We see the "enemy" differently. Some of us see the human enemy, whereas, others see the "ideology" that must be fought. We are in a culture war, at home and abroad. We must resolve our differences in pritotizing the value of freedom, so that we can maintain and uphold justice, otherwise, we doom all of us to be under the dominion of unjust men in the name of "god". And injustice will prevail upon the individual, as well as society.
Showing posts with label Amercian values. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Amercian values. Show all posts
Friday, July 24, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Art, Form, and Expression
Art in the free world is a personal, as well as a cultural "expression". One's view of life and value is represented by these forms of expression, whether these expressions are in the printed press about politics, or whether these expressions are "artistic" ways of expressing other "forms" of "life". The West values the freedom of expression and so, we do not confine or undermine free expression. But, there are other countries that do.
Just this morning while going throught the massive piles of last week's newpapers, I read where China is now limiting Facebook and Twitter. There is much regulation is such countries because of their need to control the population's information that might undermine "elite power".
Such is also the case in Islamic countries where women are covered from head to toe. The free expression of "fashion" is not to be desired, affirmed, valued or allowed. "Allah" is a "black and white" God. Color, whether literal or metaphorical, is not appreciated in such cultures.
Even though conservative Islamic woman have no choice in their public image, I found many Islamic women going throught the history of fashion exhibition at the Victoria and Albert museum in London. I wondered why they were interested. Was art and its value a human universal, even when it is suppressed? The "universal" categories of "black and white" were more in line with "conservatism", than a particular religious tradition.
As I was looking and pondering over these thoughts, I came across two English women, who were viewing the case before them. One made a rather disintergrating and distainful remark about the "American designer sweatsuit" in the case. As she and her friend were obviously interested in "designer clothes", there was no value judgment made against expensive items. So, I wondered why the value judgment was made against this particular item of clothing.
The statement seemed to be dismissing as extravagant an expensive sweatsuit, while making allowance for much more expensive items of clothing. Was this value judgment based on a "traditional" understanding of aristocratic dressing, for an occassion? The value of aristocracy and its "image" is important to European identity, while Americans are practical and value using thier money where it is most useful, which is an individually determined definition. Sweatsuits are probably worn more than an evening gown, for instance. So, some Americans might find value in spending their money on an expensive sweatsuit, than an expensive gown.
America is known for individualism, informality, practicality, pragmatism, and liberty. I wonder if other countries look at our "success" as innovators, and our economic liberties as something that is envied and resented. America has represented many things to many people, because of our freedoms. Our freedoms are unique in this world. And I think rulers in other countries envy our "power" over the "ideals" of thier people.
I think being equal under law in a representative government is the best "ideal" there is in this world. Americans should value, defend and maintain this "form" rather than bickering about other "forms" of expression and being in this world.
Just this morning while going throught the massive piles of last week's newpapers, I read where China is now limiting Facebook and Twitter. There is much regulation is such countries because of their need to control the population's information that might undermine "elite power".
Such is also the case in Islamic countries where women are covered from head to toe. The free expression of "fashion" is not to be desired, affirmed, valued or allowed. "Allah" is a "black and white" God. Color, whether literal or metaphorical, is not appreciated in such cultures.
Even though conservative Islamic woman have no choice in their public image, I found many Islamic women going throught the history of fashion exhibition at the Victoria and Albert museum in London. I wondered why they were interested. Was art and its value a human universal, even when it is suppressed? The "universal" categories of "black and white" were more in line with "conservatism", than a particular religious tradition.
As I was looking and pondering over these thoughts, I came across two English women, who were viewing the case before them. One made a rather disintergrating and distainful remark about the "American designer sweatsuit" in the case. As she and her friend were obviously interested in "designer clothes", there was no value judgment made against expensive items. So, I wondered why the value judgment was made against this particular item of clothing.
The statement seemed to be dismissing as extravagant an expensive sweatsuit, while making allowance for much more expensive items of clothing. Was this value judgment based on a "traditional" understanding of aristocratic dressing, for an occassion? The value of aristocracy and its "image" is important to European identity, while Americans are practical and value using thier money where it is most useful, which is an individually determined definition. Sweatsuits are probably worn more than an evening gown, for instance. So, some Americans might find value in spending their money on an expensive sweatsuit, than an expensive gown.
America is known for individualism, informality, practicality, pragmatism, and liberty. I wonder if other countries look at our "success" as innovators, and our economic liberties as something that is envied and resented. America has represented many things to many people, because of our freedoms. Our freedoms are unique in this world. And I think rulers in other countries envy our "power" over the "ideals" of thier people.
I think being equal under law in a representative government is the best "ideal" there is in this world. Americans should value, defend and maintain this "form" rather than bickering about other "forms" of expression and being in this world.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
A Re-Definition of What is Valued ..
Belief is a form that is constructed by certain groups that maintain their group identity. These are groups such as faith groups, social groups, nation states, etc. Those that are the leaders within these groups formulate what is to be believed to maintain identification and social order to accomplish their particular purposes. Beliefs form laws, and are speicified by the group's values .
While beliefs form laws, these beliefs also define behavior that is appropriate within a certain group. Those who maintain the behavior that is defined as appropriate are the ones on the "inside". These people "belong". "Others" do not belong. These boundaries help to define the "self'.
"Self" is a function of the ego and those who have healthy egos are defined by no source outside of themselves, as they are defined by their own values and not group identification.
If the ego is not formed or values are not clarified, then the ego is formed by those in their particular cultural location. This frames the ego's defenses and helps the "ego" to define itself over against another ego. This maintains an "us and them" mentality. But, "us and them" mentality is healthy, in that it distinguishes between. Healthy egos do make distinctions.
I have come to the conclusion that believers base their faith on belief systems (and systems are part of the definition of "original sin"). These maintain religious identification, while those who base their faith in reason have two responses.
Those who base their reason on bahavior are agnostic. They do not want to commit to a particular definition of value, whereas, those who are atheistic base their value on reason alone. Self is defined by reason's assessment of greatest value.
Agnostics are tenuous in their commitment because their "self" has not commited one way or another. Perhaps, ego definition is needed by identifying with others in their behavior, while those whose ego is defined does not hesitate to define themselves outside of any other framework. They evaluate their commitment on "self-interest". So, conflict in self interest brings about a resolution of one's important and most valued commitments.
I think that committing to oneself in what one values most is not dismissing the other, but defining self. This is a necessary "duty", as without definition, there can be no resolution, commitment, or focus in one's life as to values.
Diversity in unity is for the functioning of society that is reasonable. While all men are created equal, there are differences that must be allowed. These distinctions are where boundaries must be maintained in valuing the best. It is ethical in focus, as it chooses between two "goods". It distinguishes and discerns. This is why it is important that leadership is not given to those who cannot be diverse in their understanding of "diversity". Otherwise, we allow absolutist to draw lines that need more nuance, subtlty, understanding etc.This is what diplomacy is about. But diplomats also have to deal with absolutists. This view of diversity in unity defines what is "true" for one's "self definition.
Unity in diversity is the view of group identification and not self identification. Unity in diversity calls for conformity to group identifiers, so that the stated purposes of leadership can be followed. This does not allow freedom of conscience, but a commitment to certain purposes already defined. This view is a functional approach to orgaizational structuring and societial functioning. This view defines what is "love" or tolerance.
Therefore, I continue to uphold our Representative Republic as the highest moral order and value for it allows the individual to choose his greatest good and greatest value within the definitions of lawful behavior. The individual pursues his own course, and not another's for his own life and as he does so, he brings value to society and understands his own values better.
Someone said on another blog site that America does not have a culture. Culture is defined by religious tradition and we do not define ourselves on religious tradition, but a freedom of conscience, that is upheld by laws. This is what the separation of Church and State is about. The State protects the individual from being accused as a criminal based on religious ideals., and yet, it protects the religious individuals freedoms, as well.
Our laws are defined by universal human ideals that protect individuality or human rights. But, "We, the People" have defined oursevles by our Constitutional government and discriminate based on citizen rights. Therefore, "We, the people" do exist apart from another nation's interests. We must maintain the distincition and stop allowing multiculturalism to play into the hands of dissolving our freedoms "as a people". The Nation State still has significance and the citizen still has rights!
While beliefs form laws, these beliefs also define behavior that is appropriate within a certain group. Those who maintain the behavior that is defined as appropriate are the ones on the "inside". These people "belong". "Others" do not belong. These boundaries help to define the "self'.
"Self" is a function of the ego and those who have healthy egos are defined by no source outside of themselves, as they are defined by their own values and not group identification.
If the ego is not formed or values are not clarified, then the ego is formed by those in their particular cultural location. This frames the ego's defenses and helps the "ego" to define itself over against another ego. This maintains an "us and them" mentality. But, "us and them" mentality is healthy, in that it distinguishes between. Healthy egos do make distinctions.
I have come to the conclusion that believers base their faith on belief systems (and systems are part of the definition of "original sin"). These maintain religious identification, while those who base their faith in reason have two responses.
Those who base their reason on bahavior are agnostic. They do not want to commit to a particular definition of value, whereas, those who are atheistic base their value on reason alone. Self is defined by reason's assessment of greatest value.
Agnostics are tenuous in their commitment because their "self" has not commited one way or another. Perhaps, ego definition is needed by identifying with others in their behavior, while those whose ego is defined does not hesitate to define themselves outside of any other framework. They evaluate their commitment on "self-interest". So, conflict in self interest brings about a resolution of one's important and most valued commitments.
I think that committing to oneself in what one values most is not dismissing the other, but defining self. This is a necessary "duty", as without definition, there can be no resolution, commitment, or focus in one's life as to values.
Diversity in unity is for the functioning of society that is reasonable. While all men are created equal, there are differences that must be allowed. These distinctions are where boundaries must be maintained in valuing the best. It is ethical in focus, as it chooses between two "goods". It distinguishes and discerns. This is why it is important that leadership is not given to those who cannot be diverse in their understanding of "diversity". Otherwise, we allow absolutist to draw lines that need more nuance, subtlty, understanding etc.This is what diplomacy is about. But diplomats also have to deal with absolutists. This view of diversity in unity defines what is "true" for one's "self definition.
Unity in diversity is the view of group identification and not self identification. Unity in diversity calls for conformity to group identifiers, so that the stated purposes of leadership can be followed. This does not allow freedom of conscience, but a commitment to certain purposes already defined. This view is a functional approach to orgaizational structuring and societial functioning. This view defines what is "love" or tolerance.
Therefore, I continue to uphold our Representative Republic as the highest moral order and value for it allows the individual to choose his greatest good and greatest value within the definitions of lawful behavior. The individual pursues his own course, and not another's for his own life and as he does so, he brings value to society and understands his own values better.
Someone said on another blog site that America does not have a culture. Culture is defined by religious tradition and we do not define ourselves on religious tradition, but a freedom of conscience, that is upheld by laws. This is what the separation of Church and State is about. The State protects the individual from being accused as a criminal based on religious ideals., and yet, it protects the religious individuals freedoms, as well.
Our laws are defined by universal human ideals that protect individuality or human rights. But, "We, the People" have defined oursevles by our Constitutional government and discriminate based on citizen rights. Therefore, "We, the people" do exist apart from another nation's interests. We must maintain the distincition and stop allowing multiculturalism to play into the hands of dissolving our freedoms "as a people". The Nation State still has significance and the citizen still has rights!
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Do Values Determine One's Paradigmic Understanding?
I have been thinking a lot about our American Government and the values it upholds. This is probably timely, as July 4th is just aroung the corner. We, Americans, "hold these truth to be evident, that all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights".This implies that each person's understanding and values are to be commended, as a "right". But, what determines their "understanding"? Education and culture.
Culture is a frame of reference, which determines the most important values of a person. In our free society, the individual is "free" to determine his own life. It is called "self-government". Our Constitution limits our government from overt determination or covert suppression, in a number of areas; privacy, religion, freedom of expression (speech, press, assembly). Individuality marks the American experiment.
But, Americans determine their own values in various ways. Some Americans adhere to an exclusive religious claim and gain and maintain their identity through the group's approved norms. Others Americans gain their values from their specified "cultural location". These values all influence the individual's own values and determine how he views the world and life, in general.
Education in our American society has been public, private, and religiously based. Each has its own constituencies. And each has its emphasis. While private and religiously based education has been privately funded, public education has not. We believe in the right of everyone to have an education. There is no "elite class" or "tracking system" as in European countries. A lack of "tracking or limiting" education to those who are "fit" for it has its downsides, as well as its opportunities. But, Americans believe in equality of each individual to choose his place of education.
Education has been valued for its ability to prepare others for a vocation/job, as Americans are pragmatists. Pragmatism has had its impact on American opportunity, irregardless of 'fit". In Europe, education is deemed to be a service to society. Those who have higher IQ's are deemed "fit" to fulfill a certain role or function in society. These are the ones who are tracked to attend the "gymnasium" high school and later to attend the publically funded universities.
Professors are considered highly in European society, whereas, educators are not valued, on the whole in American society. Americans like their entertainment, after working their jobs to earn their living. They don't seem to care to think about "values" or if "values" are important to address as to change. Americans are open, generous, and self-focused, for the most part, because they are naive'.
Perhaps, because America is so large and many do not travel extensively and even when we do, we don't go out of our country to understand the 'wider world". Cultural differences don't exist because we are a diverse country and "anything goes", while Europeans can be in another country and hear another language and experience another culture in a matter of a few hours drive. Most Europeans are exposed to differences, in a different way, than Americans are.
So, when Americans talk of values, then we are a people who define ourselves, by the multiplicity of opportunities, and "cultures" we can be a part of. American identity is as diverse as the American population. And the individual's values are developed within a diverse, open and free society that should value critical thinking more than it does.
Culture is a frame of reference, which determines the most important values of a person. In our free society, the individual is "free" to determine his own life. It is called "self-government". Our Constitution limits our government from overt determination or covert suppression, in a number of areas; privacy, religion, freedom of expression (speech, press, assembly). Individuality marks the American experiment.
But, Americans determine their own values in various ways. Some Americans adhere to an exclusive religious claim and gain and maintain their identity through the group's approved norms. Others Americans gain their values from their specified "cultural location". These values all influence the individual's own values and determine how he views the world and life, in general.
Education in our American society has been public, private, and religiously based. Each has its own constituencies. And each has its emphasis. While private and religiously based education has been privately funded, public education has not. We believe in the right of everyone to have an education. There is no "elite class" or "tracking system" as in European countries. A lack of "tracking or limiting" education to those who are "fit" for it has its downsides, as well as its opportunities. But, Americans believe in equality of each individual to choose his place of education.
Education has been valued for its ability to prepare others for a vocation/job, as Americans are pragmatists. Pragmatism has had its impact on American opportunity, irregardless of 'fit". In Europe, education is deemed to be a service to society. Those who have higher IQ's are deemed "fit" to fulfill a certain role or function in society. These are the ones who are tracked to attend the "gymnasium" high school and later to attend the publically funded universities.
Professors are considered highly in European society, whereas, educators are not valued, on the whole in American society. Americans like their entertainment, after working their jobs to earn their living. They don't seem to care to think about "values" or if "values" are important to address as to change. Americans are open, generous, and self-focused, for the most part, because they are naive'.
Perhaps, because America is so large and many do not travel extensively and even when we do, we don't go out of our country to understand the 'wider world". Cultural differences don't exist because we are a diverse country and "anything goes", while Europeans can be in another country and hear another language and experience another culture in a matter of a few hours drive. Most Europeans are exposed to differences, in a different way, than Americans are.
So, when Americans talk of values, then we are a people who define ourselves, by the multiplicity of opportunities, and "cultures" we can be a part of. American identity is as diverse as the American population. And the individual's values are developed within a diverse, open and free society that should value critical thinking more than it does.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Conforming Tradition
Those who subscribe to social construction must understand how tradition "works", so that a successful re-definition can be accomplished. Re-defining tradition is important to bring about transformation. The question today is what is tradition's role, when science is understanding human development in such a way that undermines the prominent role of tradition in past centuries.
Tradition, in the past, when there were hierarchal understandings of government, brings about "hope" to oppressed people, by giving a future judgment to the injustices suffered today. The "constructors" of tradition (theologians/philosophers) also use "moral modelling" to give a "vision of life", so that moral example can be followed. These images, whether real historical figures, or mythical ones are literary devices that "conform" the individual to group norms and values. Because these cultures are hierarhcal in governing, the "role model" is one of personal sacrifice. The personal sacrifice of one class for another is the moral model for an aristocratic class, which is what "inspired" Luther to bring about the Reformation in questioning the Church authorities. Tradition is not based on democratic ideals. The book of Hebrews in the Christian scripture and "The Chronicles of Narnia" are two examples of these types of Christiaan literature.
The social sciences are revealing that men develop through the use of education, where critical thinking is valued and helps the individual to come to terms with his own values, apart from traditional conformity. This is not to say that tradition will not become a dominant value to one such educated, as the indiviudal must determine for himself what is of ultimate concern. But, it does mean that the individual could leave tradition's role and re-define himself according to his own personal interests and values.
Traditional cultures depend on religion to maintain their identification and define values. These values are interpreted by religious authorities that rule and dominate another's conscience and choice. These cultures do not value freedom in any form, as freedom of information through academia, the media, and life choice would undermine tradition's role of dominance and determination, which would limit and undermine the aristocrat in their purpose of maintaining "social order", whether the "aristocrat" is a political or religious leader.
Tradition, in the past, when there were hierarchal understandings of government, brings about "hope" to oppressed people, by giving a future judgment to the injustices suffered today. The "constructors" of tradition (theologians/philosophers) also use "moral modelling" to give a "vision of life", so that moral example can be followed. These images, whether real historical figures, or mythical ones are literary devices that "conform" the individual to group norms and values. Because these cultures are hierarhcal in governing, the "role model" is one of personal sacrifice. The personal sacrifice of one class for another is the moral model for an aristocratic class, which is what "inspired" Luther to bring about the Reformation in questioning the Church authorities. Tradition is not based on democratic ideals. The book of Hebrews in the Christian scripture and "The Chronicles of Narnia" are two examples of these types of Christiaan literature.
The social sciences are revealing that men develop through the use of education, where critical thinking is valued and helps the individual to come to terms with his own values, apart from traditional conformity. This is not to say that tradition will not become a dominant value to one such educated, as the indiviudal must determine for himself what is of ultimate concern. But, it does mean that the individual could leave tradition's role and re-define himself according to his own personal interests and values.
Traditional cultures depend on religion to maintain their identification and define values. These values are interpreted by religious authorities that rule and dominate another's conscience and choice. These cultures do not value freedom in any form, as freedom of information through academia, the media, and life choice would undermine tradition's role of dominance and determination, which would limit and undermine the aristocrat in their purpose of maintaining "social order", whether the "aristocrat" is a political or religious leader.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Corruption and Compromise in High Places
The news is filled with the downfall of many of our leaders and we yawn. Our democracy is only as strong as the leaders' commitment to value the ideals of our Founding Fathers. Some believe that without personal character, these ideals will be compromised. Others suggest that even our Founders were immoral in certain areas of their lives. Does it matter?
A leader has a relationship of some kind to those he leads. Trust is of major importance in any relationship. For if trust is broken, those that follow are hesitant or questioning the leader's "vision". The question is, "Is trust based on the lifestyle and example of the leader or the ideals ("vision") of the leader"?
Conservatives believe that there must be congruency in one's life. One's ideals cannot be disconnected from one's character. This seems to be why conservatives are "inspected" by the media and others with more scrunity. Hypocrisy is not the "ideal" of anyone for leadership.
Liberals seem to have more room to "fail" in their personal lives, with little or no consequence. Liberals disconnect thier private life from their public "vision". People seem to accept this separation, for the most part, for America likes to protect their private life from public scrutiny.
The separation of the private and public sector is what the separation of Church and State was based upon. One's personal convictions about morals did not impinge upon one's public "ideals". How can we trust that if a man "compromises" on his most intimate relationship, that he will "stay true" in other matters of public interest? The "game" has become one of "hide and seek". If one can "cover up" thier private indiscretions from the media, then "all is well". American freedom has become American license.
Though I believe that one's personal commitments do illustrate commitment to the public interests, I do not believe that dissolving the line between the public and private sector in public affairs is the way to build public welfare.
Just last night the President gave his "vision" for healthcare reform. We have seen and heard this all before. It is nothing new. But, those who are finding their monetary resources at an all time low, and wondering how to meet their debts are "open targets" for this kind of propaganda. We have been warned that those who hold debt, will inevitable be enslaved to the debt holders. But, America continues to live on 'credit" and dismiss the warning of our Founder's wisdom.
Why am I concerned about another government takeover of healthcare? Healthcare accounts for one of the highest areas of our GNP. Government beauracracies can "hide" many outrageous expenses, which are useful for those in government to create their own "business" at public expense (taxes). We have seen how contractors charge the government outrageous prices for government "needs". The tax-payer foots the bill.
My son told me that while we were in Europe, Glenn Beck featured a story about 134.5 Billion dollars of our government bonds being confiscated at the Italian border. No one seems to know if these bonds are conterfeit, if the two Japanese are being held, or why these bonds were being smuggled across the Italian border. The Treasury Department seems to be unconcerned, as they have "investigated" by looking at the bonds on the internet! Why has this news story been suppressed? There are many "imanginative scenarios".
What has a public servant, healthcare and American bonds have in common? American interests! The interest of the American people should be the concern of the public servant.
Healthcare cannot be "invested" in the government without public accountability through stock-holders that have interests that are open to public scrunity. We are, after all, a government "for the people and by the people", not a government "for the people, by the government".
American bonds are a sacred trust of public interests in American economic viability. Certainly, the media would hold public servants accountable for such a large (1%) of our GNP and investigate and inform the American people! Or is there a "cover-up" of the American government about our real economic "problems"? Are we indebted to countries that hold our values? Or are we going to be enslaved to those who want to rule us by tyranny?
No one is above "falling" morally, but if we do not hold leadership for their failures, then we will never be able to trust our government. Unfortunately, trust has been broken for so long, that we have become cynical about our government and most American's don't even listen or care about what is happening.
A leader has a relationship of some kind to those he leads. Trust is of major importance in any relationship. For if trust is broken, those that follow are hesitant or questioning the leader's "vision". The question is, "Is trust based on the lifestyle and example of the leader or the ideals ("vision") of the leader"?
Conservatives believe that there must be congruency in one's life. One's ideals cannot be disconnected from one's character. This seems to be why conservatives are "inspected" by the media and others with more scrunity. Hypocrisy is not the "ideal" of anyone for leadership.
Liberals seem to have more room to "fail" in their personal lives, with little or no consequence. Liberals disconnect thier private life from their public "vision". People seem to accept this separation, for the most part, for America likes to protect their private life from public scrutiny.
The separation of the private and public sector is what the separation of Church and State was based upon. One's personal convictions about morals did not impinge upon one's public "ideals". How can we trust that if a man "compromises" on his most intimate relationship, that he will "stay true" in other matters of public interest? The "game" has become one of "hide and seek". If one can "cover up" thier private indiscretions from the media, then "all is well". American freedom has become American license.
Though I believe that one's personal commitments do illustrate commitment to the public interests, I do not believe that dissolving the line between the public and private sector in public affairs is the way to build public welfare.
Just last night the President gave his "vision" for healthcare reform. We have seen and heard this all before. It is nothing new. But, those who are finding their monetary resources at an all time low, and wondering how to meet their debts are "open targets" for this kind of propaganda. We have been warned that those who hold debt, will inevitable be enslaved to the debt holders. But, America continues to live on 'credit" and dismiss the warning of our Founder's wisdom.
Why am I concerned about another government takeover of healthcare? Healthcare accounts for one of the highest areas of our GNP. Government beauracracies can "hide" many outrageous expenses, which are useful for those in government to create their own "business" at public expense (taxes). We have seen how contractors charge the government outrageous prices for government "needs". The tax-payer foots the bill.
My son told me that while we were in Europe, Glenn Beck featured a story about 134.5 Billion dollars of our government bonds being confiscated at the Italian border. No one seems to know if these bonds are conterfeit, if the two Japanese are being held, or why these bonds were being smuggled across the Italian border. The Treasury Department seems to be unconcerned, as they have "investigated" by looking at the bonds on the internet! Why has this news story been suppressed? There are many "imanginative scenarios".
What has a public servant, healthcare and American bonds have in common? American interests! The interest of the American people should be the concern of the public servant.
Healthcare cannot be "invested" in the government without public accountability through stock-holders that have interests that are open to public scrunity. We are, after all, a government "for the people and by the people", not a government "for the people, by the government".
American bonds are a sacred trust of public interests in American economic viability. Certainly, the media would hold public servants accountable for such a large (1%) of our GNP and investigate and inform the American people! Or is there a "cover-up" of the American government about our real economic "problems"? Are we indebted to countries that hold our values? Or are we going to be enslaved to those who want to rule us by tyranny?
No one is above "falling" morally, but if we do not hold leadership for their failures, then we will never be able to trust our government. Unfortunately, trust has been broken for so long, that we have become cynical about our government and most American's don't even listen or care about what is happening.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Identities, Faith and Such...
Identities are known to be "attached" to something. A fully developed and functioning "self" has come to understand itself within a framework of values that are of utmost importance. These values hold the "key" to understand what motivates the person to action and is what the personal identity is "attached to".
Children "attach" their identities to their "important other". Their "self" is understood only in relationship to another whose opinion and desires they seek to please. Parents are of utmost importance in the early stage of the developing ego. But, parental "images" continue in Christian understandings of faith. Reason does not define faith, but trust does. This is an infantile stage of ego development.
Young adults must be allowed the freedom to choose for themselves for what their "attachments" will be. Will their attachments be to their social group of origin, whether that be defined by religious/cultural/familial or will they find a separation of their identity because of "reasonable" reasons? The difference is based on whether one thinks that man is a "thinking self" or a "relational self". I don't think the answer is going to be an "either/or". Man is a thinking, as well as a social animal. And each individual will have variances of these tendencies.
Some have suggested that without content, faith has no value. This may be the case for some. The political has a lot to do with how the social is understood. The political is about power. Power was not the position of the early Christians, for the most part. Therefore, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that faith was a "crutch" to defend the identity of those whose identities had be stolen by those in power?
Democracy allows the "self" to develop beyond the infantile dependent stage of childhood. Freedom of information, and the individual's self determination of choice are important values to uphold in "helping" the individual to develop fully. Tribalisitc mentality leads nothing to critical thinking, but a dependent attitude of helplessness that mimics another's values, instead of coming to terms with their own unique identity. This is why American values of "life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness" is of ultimate value for anyone who believes in the individual and the individual's "right to exist".
Children "attach" their identities to their "important other". Their "self" is understood only in relationship to another whose opinion and desires they seek to please. Parents are of utmost importance in the early stage of the developing ego. But, parental "images" continue in Christian understandings of faith. Reason does not define faith, but trust does. This is an infantile stage of ego development.
Young adults must be allowed the freedom to choose for themselves for what their "attachments" will be. Will their attachments be to their social group of origin, whether that be defined by religious/cultural/familial or will they find a separation of their identity because of "reasonable" reasons? The difference is based on whether one thinks that man is a "thinking self" or a "relational self". I don't think the answer is going to be an "either/or". Man is a thinking, as well as a social animal. And each individual will have variances of these tendencies.
Some have suggested that without content, faith has no value. This may be the case for some. The political has a lot to do with how the social is understood. The political is about power. Power was not the position of the early Christians, for the most part. Therefore, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that faith was a "crutch" to defend the identity of those whose identities had be stolen by those in power?
Democracy allows the "self" to develop beyond the infantile dependent stage of childhood. Freedom of information, and the individual's self determination of choice are important values to uphold in "helping" the individual to develop fully. Tribalisitc mentality leads nothing to critical thinking, but a dependent attitude of helplessness that mimics another's values, instead of coming to terms with their own unique identity. This is why American values of "life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness" is of ultimate value for anyone who believes in the individual and the individual's "right to exist".
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Culture Wars Are Ideological
Culture wars center on ideology. And ideology determines how one understands, and 'puts together" their understanding.
In today's America there is a battle for "truth", which is "real history". This battle is not fought just within our borders, but in the wider world, as it affects the world at large.
There are some that believe that our nation's founding was to promote a Christian ideology. What transpires when this thinking is allowed without challenge, is a type of fundamentalism in application of "authorial sources", whether that be scripture or Church tradition/authorities. Who decides what is to be "real reality", i.e. power in the political realm.
I believe our Founding Fathers were theistic rationalists. They understood the implications of allowing a Church tradition (that includes scriptural traditions) to play out politically. It ends in war over whose interpretation, whose "right" is to be defended, and where will that play out in the reality of others lives who don't believe as the "ruling party". They protected us from this situation by the "Establishment Clause".
Conservative Christians have been concerned over the country's "moral demise" and have entered the public square to influence legislatures to implement their form of "truth". The "Moral Majority" was born and social activism was birthed in the pulpits of many churches. The evanlgelicals were known to have the traditonal values and commitments to the "family, pro-life, and anti-gay" movements. These positions played out politically in lobbying, petitioning, protesting, and appealing. If one did not adhere to these standards, then Christian faith was doubtful.
The Christian Church became political in every aspect, as their view was "total commitment" to Christian values. "Toltal commitment" to Christian values broke the wall between separation of Church and State, re-wrote history, and alienated those whose political views might differ.
I have been reading the writings of our Founding Fathers and find their insight profound. These men were not "Bible believing" Christians, but Deists, theistic rationalist, unitarians, etc. They valued freedom of conscience, when it pertained to religious matters. And they found that tyranny was often the result of combining religion and politics.
Whenever ideology does not allow open dialogue across diverse voices, there will be a lack of freedom for the individual. And our Founders found that the individual conscience and reason was the best way to formulate the "standards" of government.
The culture wars we have today are based on universality, which the Founders believed, or exclusivisity, which the Puritans believed. These ideologies could not be further from each other. But, exclusivist claims to truth do not allow freedom of conscience, freedom of discourse, or reasonable choice.
We are a people, but a diverse people who do not adhere to any particular conviction about religion. We are based upon a rational choice ideology, and not a "determinsitic God" of the Calvinist sort.
In today's America there is a battle for "truth", which is "real history". This battle is not fought just within our borders, but in the wider world, as it affects the world at large.
There are some that believe that our nation's founding was to promote a Christian ideology. What transpires when this thinking is allowed without challenge, is a type of fundamentalism in application of "authorial sources", whether that be scripture or Church tradition/authorities. Who decides what is to be "real reality", i.e. power in the political realm.
I believe our Founding Fathers were theistic rationalists. They understood the implications of allowing a Church tradition (that includes scriptural traditions) to play out politically. It ends in war over whose interpretation, whose "right" is to be defended, and where will that play out in the reality of others lives who don't believe as the "ruling party". They protected us from this situation by the "Establishment Clause".
Conservative Christians have been concerned over the country's "moral demise" and have entered the public square to influence legislatures to implement their form of "truth". The "Moral Majority" was born and social activism was birthed in the pulpits of many churches. The evanlgelicals were known to have the traditonal values and commitments to the "family, pro-life, and anti-gay" movements. These positions played out politically in lobbying, petitioning, protesting, and appealing. If one did not adhere to these standards, then Christian faith was doubtful.
The Christian Church became political in every aspect, as their view was "total commitment" to Christian values. "Toltal commitment" to Christian values broke the wall between separation of Church and State, re-wrote history, and alienated those whose political views might differ.
I have been reading the writings of our Founding Fathers and find their insight profound. These men were not "Bible believing" Christians, but Deists, theistic rationalist, unitarians, etc. They valued freedom of conscience, when it pertained to religious matters. And they found that tyranny was often the result of combining religion and politics.
Whenever ideology does not allow open dialogue across diverse voices, there will be a lack of freedom for the individual. And our Founders found that the individual conscience and reason was the best way to formulate the "standards" of government.
The culture wars we have today are based on universality, which the Founders believed, or exclusivisity, which the Puritans believed. These ideologies could not be further from each other. But, exclusivist claims to truth do not allow freedom of conscience, freedom of discourse, or reasonable choice.
We are a people, but a diverse people who do not adhere to any particular conviction about religion. We are based upon a rational choice ideology, and not a "determinsitic God" of the Calvinist sort.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Why Is Scripture Not A Universal?
Scripture is a human book written within a certain context that evangelicals or conservatives claim is universal. Universiality is a claim to ominiscicnce. And since no human can have omniscience, as we are bound within many contexts of cultures, we are misguided to think that Scripture is the "ideal". This is where tradition enters.
Tradition is the attempt at "producing" or refining the text. The text has been debated as to his historicity or its mythology. Whether the writers of the text were writing in universal "myths" of their day (Greek) or whether they were using the contexts of their culture's myths (Hebrew), they were attempting to attain to the heavenly. Man has alwasys attempted to describe reality through many ways, philosophy, theology, psychology, mythology, literature, art, etc., as man is a creative being. So, tradition was man's attempt at creative interpretation of the transcendent.
Tradition was accepted in cutural norms, values, and mores that held society's "truths" and maintained society's "peace". As the individual, historical science, and the natural sciences gained influence in society through human reason, tradition and tradition's "culture" was challenged. Reality was no longer understood in tribal and communal ways, but individualized ways. The individual became capable of being educated beyond the "confines of culture" and became a "free moral agent". The birth of self-consciousness was "born" within the West and moral choice became of importance and value. Children could grow away from family values and tradition, because they became "self-actualized".
While "self" or the individual became important in the West, and industrialization undermined the "family farm", virtue was defined in different ways than "traditional understandings". Virtue became those who were able to attain through independence, choice and determine their own course in life. Determination was not from the outside, but the inside.
A clash of civilizations was born in the West and the East. The West understood values to be based on the "rule of law", and the social contract, whereas, the East are still influenced by their traditions. Self development is not an option in these cultures, as "self" does not exist apart from tradition. Reason is the enemy in traditional cultures, as it challenges the understandings and values of traditon's absolutes. Critical thinking is not a value to the conservative or evangelical because of their value of text or tradition. Reason is feared to undermine "god". God cannot be undermined from reason's inquiry, as reason is a god-given gift.
People who have not developed their reason, through fear of leaving tradition, are not developed to own their own person and choice and determine their own values. People who are passively accepting of tradition's values are prone to be useful for others to "use". These people are the modern day "dogs", so it is important for conservative and evangelicals to understand their faith in more reasoned and reasonable ways. Otherwise, we will have no impact on society at large. We will continue to be a small sectarian community that fears the world and waits for "god" to correct things. Those who do this are not leaders and they are doomed to wait for heaven to bring about justice.
Tradition is the attempt at "producing" or refining the text. The text has been debated as to his historicity or its mythology. Whether the writers of the text were writing in universal "myths" of their day (Greek) or whether they were using the contexts of their culture's myths (Hebrew), they were attempting to attain to the heavenly. Man has alwasys attempted to describe reality through many ways, philosophy, theology, psychology, mythology, literature, art, etc., as man is a creative being. So, tradition was man's attempt at creative interpretation of the transcendent.
Tradition was accepted in cutural norms, values, and mores that held society's "truths" and maintained society's "peace". As the individual, historical science, and the natural sciences gained influence in society through human reason, tradition and tradition's "culture" was challenged. Reality was no longer understood in tribal and communal ways, but individualized ways. The individual became capable of being educated beyond the "confines of culture" and became a "free moral agent". The birth of self-consciousness was "born" within the West and moral choice became of importance and value. Children could grow away from family values and tradition, because they became "self-actualized".
While "self" or the individual became important in the West, and industrialization undermined the "family farm", virtue was defined in different ways than "traditional understandings". Virtue became those who were able to attain through independence, choice and determine their own course in life. Determination was not from the outside, but the inside.
A clash of civilizations was born in the West and the East. The West understood values to be based on the "rule of law", and the social contract, whereas, the East are still influenced by their traditions. Self development is not an option in these cultures, as "self" does not exist apart from tradition. Reason is the enemy in traditional cultures, as it challenges the understandings and values of traditon's absolutes. Critical thinking is not a value to the conservative or evangelical because of their value of text or tradition. Reason is feared to undermine "god". God cannot be undermined from reason's inquiry, as reason is a god-given gift.
People who have not developed their reason, through fear of leaving tradition, are not developed to own their own person and choice and determine their own values. People who are passively accepting of tradition's values are prone to be useful for others to "use". These people are the modern day "dogs", so it is important for conservative and evangelicals to understand their faith in more reasoned and reasonable ways. Otherwise, we will have no impact on society at large. We will continue to be a small sectarian community that fears the world and waits for "god" to correct things. Those who do this are not leaders and they are doomed to wait for heaven to bring about justice.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The "New Atheist" Intrigue
I just went to the American Atheist website. I did not know that many of the featured speakers in the upcoming atheist convention were part of the atheist's "cause" of furthering rational thought.
Because I have found their writings, speeches more than interesting, but challenging and enlarging, I am wondering about my ultimate commitment. I think my ultimate commitment is to reason, not the transcendent, or unknown. There are too many "theories" that are just not believable, when they are not verifiable. And supernaturalists do things that are irrational, thinking that they are benefitting some "higher cause" or "purpose". This I find ungrounded, except in "faith", which I do not respect. I respect those who have reason for what they think and do, not some baseless transcendent. And the demands before us nationally is daunting enough than to deal with the unknown and the unverifiable transcentdent.
I do not think that our free society should dismiss or limit the political voice of the religious, but that that voice should no be a domineering one, nor should the atheist's voice be the lone source of our nation's focus. A plurality of voices should be the focus of our nation.
Because I have found their writings, speeches more than interesting, but challenging and enlarging, I am wondering about my ultimate commitment. I think my ultimate commitment is to reason, not the transcendent, or unknown. There are too many "theories" that are just not believable, when they are not verifiable. And supernaturalists do things that are irrational, thinking that they are benefitting some "higher cause" or "purpose". This I find ungrounded, except in "faith", which I do not respect. I respect those who have reason for what they think and do, not some baseless transcendent. And the demands before us nationally is daunting enough than to deal with the unknown and the unverifiable transcentdent.
I do not think that our free society should dismiss or limit the political voice of the religious, but that that voice should no be a domineering one, nor should the atheist's voice be the lone source of our nation's focus. A plurality of voices should be the focus of our nation.
Monday, April 13, 2009
An Interesting Experience This Morning....on Defining Values
This morning, as usual, I picked up the newspaper. There was an article about the 'new dog" at the White House, which is a water spaniel.
Since I am a dog lover, I read the whole article and found out that Sen. Ted Kennedy had given the dog as a gift to the first family. My heart was warmed. I found myself wondering why this meant so much to me fascinating. Probably, any of you reading this, will wonder what I was so fascinated about...
Well, I have certain political opinions, and find that some of the convictions that are held by our public servants to be undermining of our nation's interest, not to mention some of their character flaws. While this is the case, I found myself really appreciating the humane-ness of this kindness of Sen. Kennedy. And I found myself telling my husband how much I appreicated our public servants. There was a certain "respect' of the office that represents our nation, which I am fully committed to.
I have often heard about and have "obeyed" the conviction of "honoring the position" and not the person, sort of "command stance" toward authority. But, I found my attitude this morning surprised me.
As I reflected on this today, it became evident that I respect all of the values that our nation represents. And this is why the military give their lives for our nation. I guess, I am convinced that what we value most, we will uphold by our life commitment. I think that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is pretty "universal"....liberty and justice for all and these values are ones that demand our commitment.
Since I am a dog lover, I read the whole article and found out that Sen. Ted Kennedy had given the dog as a gift to the first family. My heart was warmed. I found myself wondering why this meant so much to me fascinating. Probably, any of you reading this, will wonder what I was so fascinated about...
Well, I have certain political opinions, and find that some of the convictions that are held by our public servants to be undermining of our nation's interest, not to mention some of their character flaws. While this is the case, I found myself really appreciating the humane-ness of this kindness of Sen. Kennedy. And I found myself telling my husband how much I appreicated our public servants. There was a certain "respect' of the office that represents our nation, which I am fully committed to.
I have often heard about and have "obeyed" the conviction of "honoring the position" and not the person, sort of "command stance" toward authority. But, I found my attitude this morning surprised me.
As I reflected on this today, it became evident that I respect all of the values that our nation represents. And this is why the military give their lives for our nation. I guess, I am convinced that what we value most, we will uphold by our life commitment. I think that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is pretty "universal"....liberty and justice for all and these values are ones that demand our commitment.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
In Answer to My Question....
This morning's entry was entitled "Is There Historical Christianity". In postmodernity, there has been an attempt to "actualize" Jesus' life, as radicalism of the text does. This is called "incarnation" in theological terms. It is bringing faith into action. This concern in scholarly and piestic circles has been the "disconnect" between faith and "works". As traditional Reformed formulas of understanding are based on faith "alone", disconnecting faith from 'real life", as piestic faith likes to "see" faith in action. Other believers have bought the "social gospel" as there is not holiness without social holiness in John Wesley's understanding. And still others think that the public and private domains need to connect because of the 'moral degeneracy that has affected Western culture.
The problem with historicizing the text into another's life, or legislating a narrow viewpoint is that it over-rides the value of that specific life for a 'worldview" or a specific moral example, which entails specific convictions and values. These cannot be universalized without doing injustice to another human life. So, where is faith and historicity in post-modernity?
Wherever faith resides it will be known by the life that is led. The problem is' another's life may differ from yours, because they are different people, with a different perspective, and different values. Such is cultural diversity. And faith is not about cultural distinctives, as faith accomodates to the culture itself. But, some suggest that faith should transform culture, as this is what faith is called to do and is what the "social gospel" is about.
That being said, Americans most of all need to lighten up on issues that drive some to ideological extremes. Moderation is a virtue. But, some think moderation is compromise, luke-warmness, and half-heartedness. But, I think that moderation shows respect and humility to reason, faith and others, as it values first and foremost freedom of the individual to have difference, and freedom of the individual before God.
The problem with historicizing the text into another's life, or legislating a narrow viewpoint is that it over-rides the value of that specific life for a 'worldview" or a specific moral example, which entails specific convictions and values. These cannot be universalized without doing injustice to another human life. So, where is faith and historicity in post-modernity?
Wherever faith resides it will be known by the life that is led. The problem is' another's life may differ from yours, because they are different people, with a different perspective, and different values. Such is cultural diversity. And faith is not about cultural distinctives, as faith accomodates to the culture itself. But, some suggest that faith should transform culture, as this is what faith is called to do and is what the "social gospel" is about.
That being said, Americans most of all need to lighten up on issues that drive some to ideological extremes. Moderation is a virtue. But, some think moderation is compromise, luke-warmness, and half-heartedness. But, I think that moderation shows respect and humility to reason, faith and others, as it values first and foremost freedom of the individual to have difference, and freedom of the individual before God.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Moral Order or Individualism, Which Determines Social Ontology
The old question of nature versus nurture is being resurrected, of sorts, in coming to understand what makes for social ontology. Social ontology is the study of reality. This interests me and my husband immensely.
The division lies in how one understands how people come to develop, as well as how they come to think, and how they put it all together. The Quadralateral is sometimes useful for understanding different ways of approaching reality, but there are certainly other ways, as well.
The Quadralateral has four components; reason, experience, tradition, and text (texts are usually understood within a tradition's framework). All aspects of the Quadralateral can be viewed from an individual developmental view, or a social/contextual/cultural/traditional view.
The individual view is based on Enlightenment principles of reason and moral order, while the social view emphasizes social/cultural/tradition and political history view, which emphasizes the individual within context. Whether one believes in an innate nature or the importance and impact of nurture within the different social units of society, both are important aspects of "being" in the world and a development of understanding (hermenuetic) of "reality" in the world.
We cannot understand, or judge from our own perspectives, which apart from the difference of understanding the social contexts themselves, are also, individually understood, depending on one's personality, gifting, and "idiosyncresies".
I want to read and study further along this line of understanding, as it is interdisciplinary in nature and it would complement my husband's "coming to terms" with faith.
The division lies in how one understands how people come to develop, as well as how they come to think, and how they put it all together. The Quadralateral is sometimes useful for understanding different ways of approaching reality, but there are certainly other ways, as well.
The Quadralateral has four components; reason, experience, tradition, and text (texts are usually understood within a tradition's framework). All aspects of the Quadralateral can be viewed from an individual developmental view, or a social/contextual/cultural/traditional view.
The individual view is based on Enlightenment principles of reason and moral order, while the social view emphasizes social/cultural/tradition and political history view, which emphasizes the individual within context. Whether one believes in an innate nature or the importance and impact of nurture within the different social units of society, both are important aspects of "being" in the world and a development of understanding (hermenuetic) of "reality" in the world.
We cannot understand, or judge from our own perspectives, which apart from the difference of understanding the social contexts themselves, are also, individually understood, depending on one's personality, gifting, and "idiosyncresies".
I want to read and study further along this line of understanding, as it is interdisciplinary in nature and it would complement my husband's "coming to terms" with faith.
Ideological Commitments in a Free Society
There has been some suggestion that ideology should not drive policy, such as medicine. This is absurd. Although most of us do not realize what our ideological commitments are, we do have them. And sometimes, these commitments are inconsistent, which brings about a befuddlement when anyone addresses our inconsistencies.I am in the process of thinking through and developing my ideological commitments.
This is a necessary process for me to have consistentency, principle, and commitment in my life. Fortunately, I have the priviledge and luxury to be able to do this, as many in our world do not.
Ideology should drive our values, commitments, and our lives and help us to process the decisions before us.I do no think and I think I am strongly opinionated about, an imposition from the outside of an ideology, which is basically, oppression of reason's value.
Ideology must not just be tolerant to the individual's development, but also, must be reasonable to those who may disagree. Ideologies must recognize their relativity in space and time. Ideologies must remain humble, in their assessments and in the process of carrying on a civilized discussion about what ideology should drive policy.I think that the worst sort of ideological commitment is an absolutizing of State or Religion.
draft
7:40:
This is a necessary process for me to have consistentency, principle, and commitment in my life. Fortunately, I have the priviledge and luxury to be able to do this, as many in our world do not.
Ideology should drive our values, commitments, and our lives and help us to process the decisions before us.I do no think and I think I am strongly opinionated about, an imposition from the outside of an ideology, which is basically, oppression of reason's value.
Ideology must not just be tolerant to the individual's development, but also, must be reasonable to those who may disagree. Ideologies must recognize their relativity in space and time. Ideologies must remain humble, in their assessments and in the process of carrying on a civilized discussion about what ideology should drive policy.I think that the worst sort of ideological commitment is an absolutizing of State or Religion.
draft
7:40:
Friday, March 13, 2009
Determined by Evolution, God, or Choice?
Rational people take responsibility for their lives, but reason is not the domain of determinism, by God or by evolution.
Evolution maintains that man is a product of chance, while Divine predestination determines by Sovereign Will. Blind Chance or Sovereign Will do not lead to responsible behavior. Chance leads one to disregard human life as nothing other than part and parcel of the natural order, while Divine Will disregards man as morally responsible or accountable for life in this world. Both undermine personal value and choice based on rationale.
Theistic evolutionists hold to "God" ordering the world through evolutionary means. But, at what point does man become responsible for the "chance" or "chaos" that occurs within reality? Some have argued at the "age of accountability", when the child reaches puberty. The Jewish religion and many others have a 'rite of passage" where the young person becomes an adult. Adults are called to self-determination or self-governance. But, not only is man responsible for himself, but man is to order the universe. Man determines, not nature or "god". But, if man determines, what is he to determine? Since man is a responsible being, then man should not determine another, but allow freedom of choice in responsible behavior.
The West understands social/political reality as one of contract or treaty. We negotiate and strategize with the other party, but we do not plan deterministically. Historically, this was not the case, as slaves were given, or exchanged in trade agreements, disregarding the slave's life and personal boundary. Kings had the pre-reogative to determine other's lives, but democracy values all life equally.
Evolutionists to be consistant would disregard any boundary of another as we are not separate entities but a "World Soul" or less. Divine Providence is no less culpable in disregarding the individual's life, if that is the pre-determined state of " God's will". There is no room in this view for personal boundary, as "God" is seen to be the Ultimate. Our wills should be nothing less than "His", which dissolves the distinction between God and man. Man is to become "One" with God. Personal, social and political distinction dissolve or really have no value or meaning when one views life in these ways.
America's values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness affirm the value of the individual in personal boundaries and moral choice. Moral value hinges on moral choice, otherwise, life is no more than an evolutionary "play" or God's "novel", where He is the Only character that really exists or matters.
I would much rather believe in freedom to be, to do, and determine my own destiny, without interference. Those who would like to help me find the way are welcome to do so, but only if they respect my choice and value my independence.
Evolution maintains that man is a product of chance, while Divine predestination determines by Sovereign Will. Blind Chance or Sovereign Will do not lead to responsible behavior. Chance leads one to disregard human life as nothing other than part and parcel of the natural order, while Divine Will disregards man as morally responsible or accountable for life in this world. Both undermine personal value and choice based on rationale.
Theistic evolutionists hold to "God" ordering the world through evolutionary means. But, at what point does man become responsible for the "chance" or "chaos" that occurs within reality? Some have argued at the "age of accountability", when the child reaches puberty. The Jewish religion and many others have a 'rite of passage" where the young person becomes an adult. Adults are called to self-determination or self-governance. But, not only is man responsible for himself, but man is to order the universe. Man determines, not nature or "god". But, if man determines, what is he to determine? Since man is a responsible being, then man should not determine another, but allow freedom of choice in responsible behavior.
The West understands social/political reality as one of contract or treaty. We negotiate and strategize with the other party, but we do not plan deterministically. Historically, this was not the case, as slaves were given, or exchanged in trade agreements, disregarding the slave's life and personal boundary. Kings had the pre-reogative to determine other's lives, but democracy values all life equally.
Evolutionists to be consistant would disregard any boundary of another as we are not separate entities but a "World Soul" or less. Divine Providence is no less culpable in disregarding the individual's life, if that is the pre-determined state of " God's will". There is no room in this view for personal boundary, as "God" is seen to be the Ultimate. Our wills should be nothing less than "His", which dissolves the distinction between God and man. Man is to become "One" with God. Personal, social and political distinction dissolve or really have no value or meaning when one views life in these ways.
America's values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness affirm the value of the individual in personal boundaries and moral choice. Moral value hinges on moral choice, otherwise, life is no more than an evolutionary "play" or God's "novel", where He is the Only character that really exists or matters.
I would much rather believe in freedom to be, to do, and determine my own destiny, without interference. Those who would like to help me find the way are welcome to do so, but only if they respect my choice and value my independence.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Ethics, Morality, and Universiality
I listened to a professor of Ethics from Princeton U. on the radio today. He was suggesting that we have a moral obligation to alleviate "world poverty". This suggests or assumes that world poverty can be alleviated, and also suggests that the only moral question is one of poverty.
These "moral universalists" impose thier views or convictions on others, just as much as those who want to legislate their personal moral convictions, say, about gay marriage, or abortion. Laws are made to impose moral action. Those with religious convictions are of course divided as to what is of most importance, in a world that is filled with complex issues.
Our nation has been generous in humanitarian aid, but that aid has been limited by immoral governments. Government determine, control and demand certain actions, while prohibiting and limiting others. A moral government must not limit individual choice, otherwise, it becomes a dominating, limiting, and oppressive government. Our nation has given 2%, while most other nations have given much less.
Social moralists are socialistic and Marxist in ideological commitments. These ideological commitments are regimes that make us all poor. This is proven historically.
Moral outrage should never drive our policy or legislation. But, these "moral universalists" demand that others have the same conviction and commitment and, Ulitmately, the same political view of implementation. "Welcome to "globalism"...
Moral univeralism limits personal responsibility and hinders freedom of expression and opinion. Governments then become "run" or led by those whose views are uniform, which ultimately makes for a communistic view of governing.
Diverse views promote and allow academic freedom, individual and personal freedom, and benefits man through creative ways of taking responsibility for their own life in innovative ways of making a living. Otherwise, the free market is limited, by government controls, and demands, which limits productivity and the ability to produce and to give.
Marxism has never led to the betterment of mankind, but in a world that is seeking for a way to understand altruism in an evolutionary world, there are no easy answers. But, usually, these believe that man must be responsible in planning how altrusim should be developed. Self interest is the epitome of "social sin".
Although I do not condone pursuing the "Almighty Dollar", pursuit is a relative term. Absolutism in the domain of morality is nothing less than domination by government control, which is immoral itself, as there must be moral choice and responsibility for there to be any moral value!
These "moral universalists" impose thier views or convictions on others, just as much as those who want to legislate their personal moral convictions, say, about gay marriage, or abortion. Laws are made to impose moral action. Those with religious convictions are of course divided as to what is of most importance, in a world that is filled with complex issues.
Our nation has been generous in humanitarian aid, but that aid has been limited by immoral governments. Government determine, control and demand certain actions, while prohibiting and limiting others. A moral government must not limit individual choice, otherwise, it becomes a dominating, limiting, and oppressive government. Our nation has given 2%, while most other nations have given much less.
Social moralists are socialistic and Marxist in ideological commitments. These ideological commitments are regimes that make us all poor. This is proven historically.
Moral outrage should never drive our policy or legislation. But, these "moral universalists" demand that others have the same conviction and commitment and, Ulitmately, the same political view of implementation. "Welcome to "globalism"...
Moral univeralism limits personal responsibility and hinders freedom of expression and opinion. Governments then become "run" or led by those whose views are uniform, which ultimately makes for a communistic view of governing.
Diverse views promote and allow academic freedom, individual and personal freedom, and benefits man through creative ways of taking responsibility for their own life in innovative ways of making a living. Otherwise, the free market is limited, by government controls, and demands, which limits productivity and the ability to produce and to give.
Marxism has never led to the betterment of mankind, but in a world that is seeking for a way to understand altruism in an evolutionary world, there are no easy answers. But, usually, these believe that man must be responsible in planning how altrusim should be developed. Self interest is the epitome of "social sin".
Although I do not condone pursuing the "Almighty Dollar", pursuit is a relative term. Absolutism in the domain of morality is nothing less than domination by government control, which is immoral itself, as there must be moral choice and responsibility for there to be any moral value!
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
The Public, The Private, and The Moral or Ethical Questions
Some people of faith believe that there should be a universal way to understand faith. These people like regulation, structure and measurements of faithfulness, and growth, while others like to define faith in purely doctrinal, or theological ways. There is nothing wrong in and of itself for a group to define its faith in a particular way, but it becomes problematic for these "faithful" to impose their views on others, impinging on another's life. Another's life is thiers to steward in the way they deem fit and for their own personal values and commitments, which may or may not fall "in line" with the afore-mentioned ways of understanding faith.
All Christians believe that life is sacred and the conservative defend to the death the "right to life" of the unborn, while excusing thier disregard to another's "right to life", as far as personal conviction or commitment. But, this is just the discussion of the private and public domains.
Some claim that one's faith is played out in life, as there is no private faith. Faith is always lived. This is true, but how these commitments of value are understood and lived are different from one person of faith to another. In a democracy, we must allow that freedom of conscience, otherwise, we are doomed to live under political or religious oppression...
For instance, China and Russia allow a "state approved" religion, while the Taliban only allow a "religiously approved" way of life. Both are unbalanced ways of coming to terms with faith. One views faith as completely personal and private, while the other views it as completely regulated. Both oppress in different ways. We must not allow this to happen in our country.
Many argue that separation of Church and State does nothing other than disadvantage religion by not allowing a "voice" to the religious, while others claim that their political freedom is disadvantaged by the imposition of that "voice". Where is the balance? What is the solution?
If faith is a playing out of one's commitment in life through action, then there is no reason to believe that whatever one does is a matter of faith. Faith should not be understood in a compartmentalized way, but at the same time, we should not demand a certain response to "prove" faith or faithfulness. Faith is about one's understanding of life and how this understanding comes to be understood.
Religious people have sacred texts that transcibe how life should be lived, according to the interpetive community. This is a sectarian view of faith and is not a universal perspective. Those who base their life on reason do not transcribe to a religious tradition necessarily, but do want reasons for their faith about one or another issue. This is the basis of our democracy and is what our public discourse, where our values are heard in the public square and defended with reasonable reasons. The political realm is where the ideological frames win or loose their power over policy. And this is the freedom of conscience that the Framer's of our Constitution allowed.
All Christians believe that life is sacred and the conservative defend to the death the "right to life" of the unborn, while excusing thier disregard to another's "right to life", as far as personal conviction or commitment. But, this is just the discussion of the private and public domains.
Some claim that one's faith is played out in life, as there is no private faith. Faith is always lived. This is true, but how these commitments of value are understood and lived are different from one person of faith to another. In a democracy, we must allow that freedom of conscience, otherwise, we are doomed to live under political or religious oppression...
For instance, China and Russia allow a "state approved" religion, while the Taliban only allow a "religiously approved" way of life. Both are unbalanced ways of coming to terms with faith. One views faith as completely personal and private, while the other views it as completely regulated. Both oppress in different ways. We must not allow this to happen in our country.
Many argue that separation of Church and State does nothing other than disadvantage religion by not allowing a "voice" to the religious, while others claim that their political freedom is disadvantaged by the imposition of that "voice". Where is the balance? What is the solution?
If faith is a playing out of one's commitment in life through action, then there is no reason to believe that whatever one does is a matter of faith. Faith should not be understood in a compartmentalized way, but at the same time, we should not demand a certain response to "prove" faith or faithfulness. Faith is about one's understanding of life and how this understanding comes to be understood.
Religious people have sacred texts that transcibe how life should be lived, according to the interpetive community. This is a sectarian view of faith and is not a universal perspective. Those who base their life on reason do not transcribe to a religious tradition necessarily, but do want reasons for their faith about one or another issue. This is the basis of our democracy and is what our public discourse, where our values are heard in the public square and defended with reasonable reasons. The political realm is where the ideological frames win or loose their power over policy. And this is the freedom of conscience that the Framer's of our Constitution allowed.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Our Political Frame Forms "Our Evil"
I am more and more of the opinion that our two party system, though good, as it "simplifies" some issues, is also at a danger of being counter-productive for other purposes.
Today America's "two party" system has been diminished by the majority held, not only in Congress, but also in our executive branch. This situations limits our two party (or two perspective) system to a one party or one perspective system. The danger is the lack of balance to power in policy formation. Ideological differences can be a good thing as it brings humility to each perspective, and it brings about negotiation, compromise, which represents a more "wholistic view" to our system of government.
The capitalistic free market system is the commitment of the Republican party. Their interests lie in business, production, and tradition. While the Republicans, for the most part believe in family values, and the Protestant work ethic, the Democrats believe in moral responsibility, the social gospel and the "common good". This view simplifies what can be personal differences of value in fiscal responsibility, social responsibility, familial responsibility, and moral responsibility. We will all understand the responsibilities we have in this life differently, as we defend and define our lives on the freedom to understand and live those differences, without judgement form 'outside interference". These differences are the very freedoms we value as Americans and we must defend them at all costs, otherwise, we are headed toward a regime or government that will circumvent individuality, difference, innovation, creativity, and limit our ability to enjoy and choose our vocations.
Evil, then is identified by the 'other position holding sway over our understanding of value. Americans, fortunately, have a re-dress from a determination of individual values, which are our civil liberties.
Today America's "two party" system has been diminished by the majority held, not only in Congress, but also in our executive branch. This situations limits our two party (or two perspective) system to a one party or one perspective system. The danger is the lack of balance to power in policy formation. Ideological differences can be a good thing as it brings humility to each perspective, and it brings about negotiation, compromise, which represents a more "wholistic view" to our system of government.
The capitalistic free market system is the commitment of the Republican party. Their interests lie in business, production, and tradition. While the Republicans, for the most part believe in family values, and the Protestant work ethic, the Democrats believe in moral responsibility, the social gospel and the "common good". This view simplifies what can be personal differences of value in fiscal responsibility, social responsibility, familial responsibility, and moral responsibility. We will all understand the responsibilities we have in this life differently, as we defend and define our lives on the freedom to understand and live those differences, without judgement form 'outside interference". These differences are the very freedoms we value as Americans and we must defend them at all costs, otherwise, we are headed toward a regime or government that will circumvent individuality, difference, innovation, creativity, and limit our ability to enjoy and choose our vocations.
Evil, then is identified by the 'other position holding sway over our understanding of value. Americans, fortunately, have a re-dress from a determination of individual values, which are our civil liberties.
Friday, February 27, 2009
What I Have Come to Believe About Love.
I really think that most of my life I have been a "romantic". Romanticism is a child-like belief in "love". Love conquers all. All the world needs now is "love sweet love". Love will make everything all right. If one just learns to love enough, then others will love in return. These are childish imaginings, built on a childish hope for "peace and goodwill to all men"..l
I have come to understand that "love" is not the exchange rate of life in this world and humans don't Love unless they know. Love is a personal word, unlike justice.
Justice is an aspect of love that seeks equality under law, respect, dignity, and value to all people. Justice is blind to difference, because difference in race, religion or "creed of life" are not evaluated in "justice's eyes". Justice is what anyone seeks for "self" and what we need to seek for others. But, justice is measured by law, as laws define and protect justice. Love fulfills the law, because love will not break the law in regards to another's difference of value or choice. Justice is moral because it seeks to give freedom for choice.
While justice is the side to love that is universal, mercy is the side that is personal. Mercy is shown in tangible ways to those whose needs vary. Mercy is not blind, as it sees clearly what the needs are and seeks to meet them. Mercy gives freedom, because it respects another's need for dignity in private moments of despair and discouragement. Mercy reaches out. but doesn't demand to serve or demean in service. Mercy is respectful.
Love is not romanticized in these values of justice or mercy. Justice and mercy seek to alleviate pain, benefit the whole and rectify the wrong.
While I have given up hope for romanticized love, in happily ever afters, as there are no "ever afters". I haven't given up on justice or mercy. While mercy doesn't appeal to me as much now, as justice once didn't in the past, I have come to understand and appreciate justice above all, as I have understood the importance of distinctions, values, and the history of our country. I have become fascinated by things that once were cold hard facts. Now, I live and love history.
I am grateful for my country and the values of freedom and justice for all, as I believe these are values that all people should experience, but most do not. I am so grateful to live in the land of the free and the home of the brave, that seeks to rectify the differences of experiencing freedom and justice for all.
I have come to understand that "love" is not the exchange rate of life in this world and humans don't Love unless they know. Love is a personal word, unlike justice.
Justice is an aspect of love that seeks equality under law, respect, dignity, and value to all people. Justice is blind to difference, because difference in race, religion or "creed of life" are not evaluated in "justice's eyes". Justice is what anyone seeks for "self" and what we need to seek for others. But, justice is measured by law, as laws define and protect justice. Love fulfills the law, because love will not break the law in regards to another's difference of value or choice. Justice is moral because it seeks to give freedom for choice.
While justice is the side to love that is universal, mercy is the side that is personal. Mercy is shown in tangible ways to those whose needs vary. Mercy is not blind, as it sees clearly what the needs are and seeks to meet them. Mercy gives freedom, because it respects another's need for dignity in private moments of despair and discouragement. Mercy reaches out. but doesn't demand to serve or demean in service. Mercy is respectful.
Love is not romanticized in these values of justice or mercy. Justice and mercy seek to alleviate pain, benefit the whole and rectify the wrong.
While I have given up hope for romanticized love, in happily ever afters, as there are no "ever afters". I haven't given up on justice or mercy. While mercy doesn't appeal to me as much now, as justice once didn't in the past, I have come to understand and appreciate justice above all, as I have understood the importance of distinctions, values, and the history of our country. I have become fascinated by things that once were cold hard facts. Now, I live and love history.
I am grateful for my country and the values of freedom and justice for all, as I believe these are values that all people should experience, but most do not. I am so grateful to live in the land of the free and the home of the brave, that seeks to rectify the differences of experiencing freedom and justice for all.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Two Kinds of Theologians (that I can tell)
There seems to be two kinds of theologians. The first type of theologian speaks to support or defend a"tradition". They "speak for God" and are "defenders of the faith". These are those in authority over others in specified institutions and positions. These theologians are exclusivist, at least in "appearance".
The other kind of theologian is one who does not make claims about speaking for "god" or a specific "tradition", but is speaking about what is universal, the ethical. The ethical is not based on revelational texts, but values.
The former bases their understanding and their theology on specific texts of "revelation" or tradition's authorities. These theologians are useful to benefit tradition's goals of growth, and communal impact and commitment.
But, I find that the ethical theologian doesn't have to be functioning within the institutional paradigm, but can use many means of "getting his message across". The purpose of these theologians is the concern for humanity, for individuals and for justice. These theologians can be journalists, lawyers, authors, teachers, activists, and even, politicians (wouldn't that be nice!).
Theologians can be anyone who cares about life in general and its larger purposes, or vision. And I think theological ethics is imperative in today's climate of expediency, pragmatism, and outcomes.
In America, it is obvious that many live for today's hamburger to be cooked well, and tomorrow's bills to be paid, but do not attend to what is happening to the larger concerns of our nation or the world at large. This attitude breeds an attitude of indifference and ultimately the downfall of our nation's imfluence and power abroad.
Others in our nation have an attitude of a different kind of entitlement, and special priviledge. These people disregard or disrepect others in their abuse of legalities that subvert the intent of the law and take advantage of the system. Their inside knowledge, either formal education or position give them a feeling of empowerment over others. This attitude breeds arrogance and ultimately leads to what has recently been seen on Wall Street, in larger corporations, or our politicians.
Both American groups are indifferent to our nation's values of equality before the law. One disrepects the law by not being "good citizens", as a lack of taking responsibility, while the other disregards the law's intent. Both undermine what has made our country great, "the rule of law". Both need a good dose of theological ethics.
The other kind of theologian is one who does not make claims about speaking for "god" or a specific "tradition", but is speaking about what is universal, the ethical. The ethical is not based on revelational texts, but values.
The former bases their understanding and their theology on specific texts of "revelation" or tradition's authorities. These theologians are useful to benefit tradition's goals of growth, and communal impact and commitment.
But, I find that the ethical theologian doesn't have to be functioning within the institutional paradigm, but can use many means of "getting his message across". The purpose of these theologians is the concern for humanity, for individuals and for justice. These theologians can be journalists, lawyers, authors, teachers, activists, and even, politicians (wouldn't that be nice!).
Theologians can be anyone who cares about life in general and its larger purposes, or vision. And I think theological ethics is imperative in today's climate of expediency, pragmatism, and outcomes.
In America, it is obvious that many live for today's hamburger to be cooked well, and tomorrow's bills to be paid, but do not attend to what is happening to the larger concerns of our nation or the world at large. This attitude breeds an attitude of indifference and ultimately the downfall of our nation's imfluence and power abroad.
Others in our nation have an attitude of a different kind of entitlement, and special priviledge. These people disregard or disrepect others in their abuse of legalities that subvert the intent of the law and take advantage of the system. Their inside knowledge, either formal education or position give them a feeling of empowerment over others. This attitude breeds arrogance and ultimately leads to what has recently been seen on Wall Street, in larger corporations, or our politicians.
Both American groups are indifferent to our nation's values of equality before the law. One disrepects the law by not being "good citizens", as a lack of taking responsibility, while the other disregards the law's intent. Both undermine what has made our country great, "the rule of law". Both need a good dose of theological ethics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
