The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”
James Madison quote
"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion." 1797 the treaty of Tripoli, signed by President Washington, and approved by the Senate of the United States
"Almighty God hath created the mind free; all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments of burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in His almighty power to do." Thomas Jefferson, Acts for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia, 1785.
"I am tolerant of all creeds. Yet if any sect suffered itself to be used for political objects I would meet it by political opposition. In my view church and state should be separate, not only in form, but fact. Religion and politics should not be mingled." Millard Fillmore (1809-1865) 13th U.S. President (Millard Fillmore, address during the 1856 presidential election; from Albert Menendez and Edd Doerr, eds., Great Quotations on Religious Freedom, Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2002, p. 70.)
"There is not a precept in the New Testament to compel, by civil law, any man who is not a Christian to pay any regard to the Lord's day, more than to any other day, and is without the authority of the christian religion. The gospel commands no duty which can be performed without faith in God. `Whatsoever is not of faith is sin' but to compel men destitute of faith to observe any Christian institution, such as the Lord's day, is commanding a duty to be performed without faith in God. Therefore, to command unbelievers, or natural men, to observe in any sense the Lord's day, is antievangelical, or contrary to the gospel." Alexander Campbell, Founder of Disciples of Christ Church Memoirs, Vol 1, pg 528.
"When religion is good, it will take care of itself. When it is not able to take care of itself, and God does not see fit to take care of it, so that it has to appeal to the civil power for support, it is evidence to my mind that its cause is a bad one." Benjamin Franklin, Statesman, Inventor, Author, Letter to Dr. Price.
"To discriminate against a thoroughly upright citizen because he belongs to some particular church, or because, like Abraham Lincoln, he has not avowed his allegiance to any church, is an outrage against the liberty of conscience, which is one of the foundations of American life." - Roosevelt's letter on religious liberty.
Showing posts with label American history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American history. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
"Does History Progress?
Does history progress? Yes and No.
History is not like it was during the Barbarian Invasions, or is it?
History is like it has always has been and ever will be when we look at the need for balancing power. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Tyranny is the name for living under such absolute power.
We cannot survive without vision about our country's future. How and what can we do to make our country "better"? How will we progress into the future? Can we find a way forward through the "culture wars"?
How do we maintain civility when most everyone has lost a sense of direction, OR their sense of direction seems to be challenged? How are we to act as "a people" to one another? Do we believe and upholde the ultimate value of our nation, liberty?
Progress has been experienced in our country through scienctific discoveries, technological advances, and through social changes, that brought about a greater hope to all. Law is not just to maintain order, or control over others, but to bring about a culture that seeks to do justly. And the basis of our laws, is that we are all equal under law, this is what justice is.
Equal under law does not mean that we all have equal abilities, interests, or motivations. But, it does mean that whoever has a desire and will "to be" or "to do" will be given an opportunity. Our society should be invested in the human and the humane, as this is what our Declaration of Independence was/is about, natural rights.
Does history progress? It is up to you, as an individual, to see that it does, and that can only be done with the will to serve and be self-reflective.
History is not like it was during the Barbarian Invasions, or is it?
History is like it has always has been and ever will be when we look at the need for balancing power. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Tyranny is the name for living under such absolute power.
We cannot survive without vision about our country's future. How and what can we do to make our country "better"? How will we progress into the future? Can we find a way forward through the "culture wars"?
How do we maintain civility when most everyone has lost a sense of direction, OR their sense of direction seems to be challenged? How are we to act as "a people" to one another? Do we believe and upholde the ultimate value of our nation, liberty?
Progress has been experienced in our country through scienctific discoveries, technological advances, and through social changes, that brought about a greater hope to all. Law is not just to maintain order, or control over others, but to bring about a culture that seeks to do justly. And the basis of our laws, is that we are all equal under law, this is what justice is.
Equal under law does not mean that we all have equal abilities, interests, or motivations. But, it does mean that whoever has a desire and will "to be" or "to do" will be given an opportunity. Our society should be invested in the human and the humane, as this is what our Declaration of Independence was/is about, natural rights.
Does history progress? It is up to you, as an individual, to see that it does, and that can only be done with the will to serve and be self-reflective.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Myth Brings Meaning
Myth is known by anthropologists to bring meaning to a certain culture. And meaning is "made" or created by mythologizing history.
This morning started my thinking on myth-making. As my husband and I were discussing my grandfather and his present physical needs, I recognized that human beings love to "romanticize" their history. This is why many times we like to reminisce over the "younger years". I have been told that many mothers would not choose to have any more children, if they really remembered the reality of labor. Somehow our brains release a relaxing chemical that promotes "memory loss". And sometimes there is actual medication to further that memory loss!
Myths make for stories that we tell our children and hold meaning of ideals that help further our goals. This is what I think has happened in our culture wars.
The real history we may never really know, but scholars do have some knowledge about that "real history", as they struggle to piece it together. But, those that have agendas that must be won, mythologize history to suit their purposes. The Church has always done this, as this is what theology is about.
Our culture wars are about where science and tradition intersect, disconnect, or compliment. One political philosopher has a two culture system or way of understanding the real and the ideal. The ideal is for the common person, who must have myth to soothe their situations in life. But, the real history is for "men' who have cut their teeth on the hard discipline of discovery.
Thus, the disciplines are about the disciplined mind, which is strengthened by reality, not subsumed, or defensive toward reality. Which culture do you fit? The idealized version, or the real reality of existence in a real world?
This morning started my thinking on myth-making. As my husband and I were discussing my grandfather and his present physical needs, I recognized that human beings love to "romanticize" their history. This is why many times we like to reminisce over the "younger years". I have been told that many mothers would not choose to have any more children, if they really remembered the reality of labor. Somehow our brains release a relaxing chemical that promotes "memory loss". And sometimes there is actual medication to further that memory loss!
Myths make for stories that we tell our children and hold meaning of ideals that help further our goals. This is what I think has happened in our culture wars.
The real history we may never really know, but scholars do have some knowledge about that "real history", as they struggle to piece it together. But, those that have agendas that must be won, mythologize history to suit their purposes. The Church has always done this, as this is what theology is about.
Our culture wars are about where science and tradition intersect, disconnect, or compliment. One political philosopher has a two culture system or way of understanding the real and the ideal. The ideal is for the common person, who must have myth to soothe their situations in life. But, the real history is for "men' who have cut their teeth on the hard discipline of discovery.
Thus, the disciplines are about the disciplined mind, which is strengthened by reality, not subsumed, or defensive toward reality. Which culture do you fit? The idealized version, or the real reality of existence in a real world?
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Idealism or Realism?
All humans understand their "realities" within frames of reference(s). Individuals are understand thier "world" with philosophical or historical lenses, after they "come of age", as self-reflective individuals. Our psychology as humans is intent on creating ourselves within our "worlds" that provide for a "flourishing environment". An identity is where we "place our hat" in these philosophical and historical references.
Philosophy has been a way to understand the "ideals" in the human heart. Ideals are universals, while their historical contexts may make differences in how these universals are interpreted and these historical contexts are individually understood and embraced.
Religion is both historical and philosophical, as religion seeks to understand man's quest for significance in their understanding of "god". Religion has been useful to create an "ideal" in a "not so ideal world". And religions have formed from those that have represented certain "ideals" that are valued in a given society or by those that have represented a certain people, or cause.
The real world of history is born out in politics, power and economics. These are areas in which the political world "speaks" in society's institutions.
America's government doesn't acknowledge the institution of the Church, so much as allow for religious freedom in individual conscience. America was a Protestant Nation, after all. We were "nominalists" in our ideology.
Today, the "culture wars" are about the real issues of policy, which impact society's institutions and society at large. Religion becomes dangerous in such an environment, because instead of individual citizens making thier own determinations about what the "ideal" "should" be, we have "God" useful to justify a "one party system". And a "one party system" is not conducive for a free society, because the minority opinion becomes marginalized and demonized.
Without realizing what is happening, what is hoped for in fighting for God, becomes oppressive and tyrannical in the "name of God".
Philosophy has been a way to understand the "ideals" in the human heart. Ideals are universals, while their historical contexts may make differences in how these universals are interpreted and these historical contexts are individually understood and embraced.
Religion is both historical and philosophical, as religion seeks to understand man's quest for significance in their understanding of "god". Religion has been useful to create an "ideal" in a "not so ideal world". And religions have formed from those that have represented certain "ideals" that are valued in a given society or by those that have represented a certain people, or cause.
The real world of history is born out in politics, power and economics. These are areas in which the political world "speaks" in society's institutions.
America's government doesn't acknowledge the institution of the Church, so much as allow for religious freedom in individual conscience. America was a Protestant Nation, after all. We were "nominalists" in our ideology.
Today, the "culture wars" are about the real issues of policy, which impact society's institutions and society at large. Religion becomes dangerous in such an environment, because instead of individual citizens making thier own determinations about what the "ideal" "should" be, we have "God" useful to justify a "one party system". And a "one party system" is not conducive for a free society, because the minority opinion becomes marginalized and demonized.
Without realizing what is happening, what is hoped for in fighting for God, becomes oppressive and tyrannical in the "name of God".
Monday, April 19, 2010
Radicalizing Reformers and Their Movements
Reform does not seek to undermine or dissolve previous institutions, or values, while revolution is a "new way" of being in the world. The "tea parties" were correlated to the civil rights movement today on a program I was listening to. Is this the case?
The Civil Rights movement was a social/political movement that valued the institutions of our society, but the leaders of the civil rights movement sought change in the cultural mores concerning African Americans. This was a movement of Reform, according to Martin Luther King, Jr. Martin Luther King, Jr. believed in passive resistance, petitioning government, public demonstrations, and public discourse. Many that have sought to follow in his footsteps have been revolutionary, not reformist in their practice. This is usually the case with any 'mover or shaker" in society. The leader becomes radicalized. This has transpired with all political, religious and cultural leaders that have had major impact on society.
Revolutionary images appeal to "ideals" that the movement won. These "ideals" become internalized in a people's consciousness and create a factor of identification. The radicalization of the civil rights movement was seen especially in the 1960's, when the Black Panthers became the "standard representation" of "Black Power". This was not Martin Luther King, Jr.'s representation. His was based on character, their movement was based on power.
History tends to not just radicalize "ideals", but also create the environment for politicizing what was useful for social change at a particular time. The politicalization of movements are dangerous because of the emotionally driven identification factors, that can end up being an environment that creates power politics.
Revolution should never be embraced by those who value our institutions. But, those that radicalize their own "ideals" and de-value the checks and balances in our form of government are bent on revolution of their own kind. This is when the "tea parties" are a reactionary response that represents "ideals", institutions, and our form of government that have become de-valued and politicized for the purpose of "change", without accountability. Government without accountability is non-representative and is what our Founders understood to be tyrannical.
The Civil Rights movement was a social/political movement that valued the institutions of our society, but the leaders of the civil rights movement sought change in the cultural mores concerning African Americans. This was a movement of Reform, according to Martin Luther King, Jr. Martin Luther King, Jr. believed in passive resistance, petitioning government, public demonstrations, and public discourse. Many that have sought to follow in his footsteps have been revolutionary, not reformist in their practice. This is usually the case with any 'mover or shaker" in society. The leader becomes radicalized. This has transpired with all political, religious and cultural leaders that have had major impact on society.
Revolutionary images appeal to "ideals" that the movement won. These "ideals" become internalized in a people's consciousness and create a factor of identification. The radicalization of the civil rights movement was seen especially in the 1960's, when the Black Panthers became the "standard representation" of "Black Power". This was not Martin Luther King, Jr.'s representation. His was based on character, their movement was based on power.
History tends to not just radicalize "ideals", but also create the environment for politicizing what was useful for social change at a particular time. The politicalization of movements are dangerous because of the emotionally driven identification factors, that can end up being an environment that creates power politics.
Revolution should never be embraced by those who value our institutions. But, those that radicalize their own "ideals" and de-value the checks and balances in our form of government are bent on revolution of their own kind. This is when the "tea parties" are a reactionary response that represents "ideals", institutions, and our form of government that have become de-valued and politicized for the purpose of "change", without accountability. Government without accountability is non-representative and is what our Founders understood to be tyrannical.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Morality and America
I have concern over our nation's recent division over "cultural issues" of morality. Our country seems to be conflicted over our ideological identity. And identity defines how we understand ourselves, so identity is an important aspect of culture.
Morality is considered by some as behavior, judgments and sentiments. Some believe that morality is intuitive, through cultural conditioning. Others believe in a more rational view of morality. It seems that because our country is so diverse, America has come to a crisis of identity. This can be useful or damaging to our ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Awhile ago, I listened to a former KGB agent talk about the process that the USSR taught them in over-taking another country. There were four stages. The third was "crisis" and this is where America finds itself. What is to happen? Will we be overcome by an "authoritarian regime' , whether religious or secular, so that order can be restored? I hope not, otherwise, we will have no more liberty, because others will decide what was of private and personal conviction and commitment.
I hope for the Founding Fathers, and life in the future for all Americans, that the lines will not be drawn and driven on ideological religious or material grounds. We will certainly have disagreements and that is healthy, as long as we can listen to the other side, without obssession. I hope we will attempt to be honest that our nation is not a uniform, and ideologically driven nation.
Our nation has been pragmatic in its approach to bringing unity from diversity. And the Founders used religious language to formulate some of our country's documents. But, others have been based on such things as natural rights, and natural law, which was the scientific view of that day. Both religious liberty AND moral order, which was understood to be the "order of the universe" were what brought about our liberty and underwrote our understanding of justice.
We need to be honest that our nation was not founded as an evangelical nation, but a secular State, which allowed for diverse views about and toward religious traditions. It is a liberal democracy or a Constitutional Republic. Both are needed to affirm and balance the other, so that our nation can remain free, and open. We do not want to limit others liberty because of our own conviction or understanding of 'life".
Morality is considered by some as behavior, judgments and sentiments. Some believe that morality is intuitive, through cultural conditioning. Others believe in a more rational view of morality. It seems that because our country is so diverse, America has come to a crisis of identity. This can be useful or damaging to our ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Awhile ago, I listened to a former KGB agent talk about the process that the USSR taught them in over-taking another country. There were four stages. The third was "crisis" and this is where America finds itself. What is to happen? Will we be overcome by an "authoritarian regime' , whether religious or secular, so that order can be restored? I hope not, otherwise, we will have no more liberty, because others will decide what was of private and personal conviction and commitment.
I hope for the Founding Fathers, and life in the future for all Americans, that the lines will not be drawn and driven on ideological religious or material grounds. We will certainly have disagreements and that is healthy, as long as we can listen to the other side, without obssession. I hope we will attempt to be honest that our nation is not a uniform, and ideologically driven nation.
Our nation has been pragmatic in its approach to bringing unity from diversity. And the Founders used religious language to formulate some of our country's documents. But, others have been based on such things as natural rights, and natural law, which was the scientific view of that day. Both religious liberty AND moral order, which was understood to be the "order of the universe" were what brought about our liberty and underwrote our understanding of justice.
We need to be honest that our nation was not founded as an evangelical nation, but a secular State, which allowed for diverse views about and toward religious traditions. It is a liberal democracy or a Constitutional Republic. Both are needed to affirm and balance the other, so that our nation can remain free, and open. We do not want to limit others liberty because of our own conviction or understanding of 'life".
Saturday, March 6, 2010
History in the Making...
Many people who live in free societies, understand that humans have the ability to "make history". These like to "make their mark" in the world through many creative avenues. And free societies allow and encourage such activity.
History's "history" has been debated as to its understanding. I have been following a few blogs on the historicity of Jesus and the following traditions. Some say history is an "art", while others prefer to view history as a science.
Ancient historians were politically motivated, as well as situationally situated, as the 'elite' were the ones that made the rules, and "called the shots". Those that followed these ancient leaders viewed them as "gods". And theirs was the fate of a leader's ambition. The "Greeks" called it "fate". Our Founders called it Providence.
Myth was always useful in these societies to create meaning or to embellish the facts, so that leaders could manuever those under them to understand their vision and to co-operate.
In human development studies, James Fowler has found that faith at it highest development understands faith as "symbol" or mythological. These myths create meaningful "worlds" for social norms and standards. And it has been understood by the religious to be the basis of our "laws".
But, America's Founders also sought an opportunity to create a unique "vision" of liberty and justice for those under religious persecution. These were using the opportunities before them to find fortune, as well as liberty of life. Taxation was the point of "no return" for the colonists, as the abuse of power united factions that otherwsie would not have been united. And the result was a 'new nation" that was founded on the rights of men, and not the right of "gods".
I think today is no less a "point of no return" if those in power continue on their course, irregardless of how their constituencies view matters. Even though our county is representative, we do believe that there are avenues of "voice" and that public engagement is a necessary part of maintaining our liberty.
So, even though I am concerned for my nation, I have hope that things will turn around and that tomorrow will bring a 'new day'. Not all countries and their peoples have that right to liberty.
I am so grateful for our liberty.
History's "history" has been debated as to its understanding. I have been following a few blogs on the historicity of Jesus and the following traditions. Some say history is an "art", while others prefer to view history as a science.
Ancient historians were politically motivated, as well as situationally situated, as the 'elite' were the ones that made the rules, and "called the shots". Those that followed these ancient leaders viewed them as "gods". And theirs was the fate of a leader's ambition. The "Greeks" called it "fate". Our Founders called it Providence.
Myth was always useful in these societies to create meaning or to embellish the facts, so that leaders could manuever those under them to understand their vision and to co-operate.
In human development studies, James Fowler has found that faith at it highest development understands faith as "symbol" or mythological. These myths create meaningful "worlds" for social norms and standards. And it has been understood by the religious to be the basis of our "laws".
But, America's Founders also sought an opportunity to create a unique "vision" of liberty and justice for those under religious persecution. These were using the opportunities before them to find fortune, as well as liberty of life. Taxation was the point of "no return" for the colonists, as the abuse of power united factions that otherwsie would not have been united. And the result was a 'new nation" that was founded on the rights of men, and not the right of "gods".
I think today is no less a "point of no return" if those in power continue on their course, irregardless of how their constituencies view matters. Even though our county is representative, we do believe that there are avenues of "voice" and that public engagement is a necessary part of maintaining our liberty.
So, even though I am concerned for my nation, I have hope that things will turn around and that tomorrow will bring a 'new day'. Not all countries and their peoples have that right to liberty.
I am so grateful for our liberty.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
A "Christian" Vision and the Pioneer's Goal
Christians have agendas that they think will "save the world". Scientific materialists also have agendas that will "save the planet". Both think that their way of understanding humanity, the world and what is "right" is the most important and valuable, otherwise, "the world will go to hell in a handbasket". These are radicals that tend to think they must convert everyone in sight to their way of thinking.
While Christians have traditionally understood their truth as supernaturally revealed, the scientists know that thier truth is based on the facts of 'realtiy". Both suggest that the transcendent or the immanant is where truth is "real", bringing us to the culture wars of today in America.
America was founded because of the disrespect of the British government in demanding a tax on those who were revolting against the Church of England. These had sought a country where they could worship God freely without 'state regulations' that they found repugnant because of the King's divorce and dissassociation from Catholicism.
Others had sought out the country for the adventure of developing a distant land and making it their own. Their was a more material goal.
The Founders had a "whale" of a problem in forming a "more perfect union" without alerting the overly scrupulous in inhibiting the way they wanted to worship God, while allowing free enterprise to become a reality in the "new world". Very different goals and purposes formed our union.
Today, Americans fight over which was "right". Which truth in history formed the Founders thoughts in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Both did.
We are a nation that is formed by man's desire to flourish in developing the land and material goods that this country provided. The Dutch made use of New York and called it "New Amsterdam". There is absolutely nothing wrong with economic prosperity, it is our country's heritage. And the free market has benefitted our society with prosperity beyond measure.
The Christian "ideal" is a "morally grounded" govenment, which they found in the Constitution that defended their right of free expression or worship. Today, though, it has gotten into areas that have not been defined by science, so much as the right to liberty. Liberty threatens the religiously conscientious, as they fear dishonoring God, or offending the Holy Spirit. These tend to want to defend "God's honor" by legislating their conscience. This was never the Founder's intent, I believe.
The First Ammendment was formed to protect religious institutions from interference of government. America did not want to form another 'state church". The provision in our Constitution of the Separation of Church and State was to formalize this conviction. But, where the early believers in America found solace in this freedom which was their ultimate value, today's church has gotten wind of the 'free enterprise' adventure to form corporations. The mixture of these values (religious freedom and the free enterprise) must still be affirmed under liberty of conscience.
Our country must defend the rights of a liberal democracy and uphold the standards of a Representative Republic, so that both the educated, uneducated, the religious and irreligious can be unified in a diverse climate, which the Founders "saw" and formed under the "rule of law".
While Christians have traditionally understood their truth as supernaturally revealed, the scientists know that thier truth is based on the facts of 'realtiy". Both suggest that the transcendent or the immanant is where truth is "real", bringing us to the culture wars of today in America.
America was founded because of the disrespect of the British government in demanding a tax on those who were revolting against the Church of England. These had sought a country where they could worship God freely without 'state regulations' that they found repugnant because of the King's divorce and dissassociation from Catholicism.
Others had sought out the country for the adventure of developing a distant land and making it their own. Their was a more material goal.
The Founders had a "whale" of a problem in forming a "more perfect union" without alerting the overly scrupulous in inhibiting the way they wanted to worship God, while allowing free enterprise to become a reality in the "new world". Very different goals and purposes formed our union.
Today, Americans fight over which was "right". Which truth in history formed the Founders thoughts in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Both did.
We are a nation that is formed by man's desire to flourish in developing the land and material goods that this country provided. The Dutch made use of New York and called it "New Amsterdam". There is absolutely nothing wrong with economic prosperity, it is our country's heritage. And the free market has benefitted our society with prosperity beyond measure.
The Christian "ideal" is a "morally grounded" govenment, which they found in the Constitution that defended their right of free expression or worship. Today, though, it has gotten into areas that have not been defined by science, so much as the right to liberty. Liberty threatens the religiously conscientious, as they fear dishonoring God, or offending the Holy Spirit. These tend to want to defend "God's honor" by legislating their conscience. This was never the Founder's intent, I believe.
The First Ammendment was formed to protect religious institutions from interference of government. America did not want to form another 'state church". The provision in our Constitution of the Separation of Church and State was to formalize this conviction. But, where the early believers in America found solace in this freedom which was their ultimate value, today's church has gotten wind of the 'free enterprise' adventure to form corporations. The mixture of these values (religious freedom and the free enterprise) must still be affirmed under liberty of conscience.
Our country must defend the rights of a liberal democracy and uphold the standards of a Representative Republic, so that both the educated, uneducated, the religious and irreligious can be unified in a diverse climate, which the Founders "saw" and formed under the "rule of law".
Monday, September 7, 2009
Which Way?
I have been fascinated by American Creation's blog site. They have been discussing many issues concerning our Founding as a nation.
Which way is best to understand our present reality? Realism , Critical Realsim, or Instrucmentalism?
Realism makes absolute and universal claims about what humans know, understand and value (or should value). Realism says that we perceive everything the same way. It is a correspondence view of Truth. History happened in the real world. Scientific facts are facts.
Instrumentalism understands "what works", is more pragmatic in its assessment, as it is focused on "outcome". Instrumentalism is a kind of "social contruction" about reality. The real is what leaders say is real. History is interpreted by these to assure outcomes.
Critical realism says that although reality is "out there", we cannot know it absolutely. We only know "in part", as we are within certain contexts of history, societial, and personal. This being the case, the critical realists must evaluate what he chooses to value as "ultimate". These are the "ideals" that our Founding Fathers viewed as "most important".
The Quadralateral affirms different ways of "being in the world". Some understand through reason and make their evaluations about life based on reason's assessment. But, reason is still interpreted within contexts of one's experience or expertise. We cannot get away from various contexts.
Though tradition and scripture are the interpretive lens of understanding culture, these are not absolute, either. So, those in leadership must strategize, using their reason, about what outcome is to be valued and work to formulate how policy helps to form that outcome.
The outcome today is multicultural, and global. The multiculturalists values reason within contexts, while the critical realists understands that everyone's culture, cannot be the one and only outcome, as we must choose what is of ultimate importance.
We need critical realists that will defend Western civilization from its demise.
This morning it was reported that Germany is at odds with America over a NATO attack that killed Afghan citizens. Globalism creates division where it concerns the West's interest, because the West has bought into the multicultural "worldview where the West is dismissed on the basis of "imperialism", or "colonialism". The multiculturalists tries to rectify injustice through minority rights. And the unintended consequences is reverse discrimination.
Last night, on TV it was reported how the multiculturalists are re-writing our history, and labelling the heroes of our past with derogatory names, undermining thier work in building our culture of freedom and justice.
I think that we are headed for rough waters unless reason holds sway above multiculturalism. Multiculturalism will lead us toward communism, which undermines individual liberties. And individual liberties are only won under accountable and responsible leadership, who inform the public of the outcome, instead of "winning" through sleight of hand.
Which way is best to understand our present reality? Realism , Critical Realsim, or Instrucmentalism?
Realism makes absolute and universal claims about what humans know, understand and value (or should value). Realism says that we perceive everything the same way. It is a correspondence view of Truth. History happened in the real world. Scientific facts are facts.
Instrumentalism understands "what works", is more pragmatic in its assessment, as it is focused on "outcome". Instrumentalism is a kind of "social contruction" about reality. The real is what leaders say is real. History is interpreted by these to assure outcomes.
Critical realism says that although reality is "out there", we cannot know it absolutely. We only know "in part", as we are within certain contexts of history, societial, and personal. This being the case, the critical realists must evaluate what he chooses to value as "ultimate". These are the "ideals" that our Founding Fathers viewed as "most important".
The Quadralateral affirms different ways of "being in the world". Some understand through reason and make their evaluations about life based on reason's assessment. But, reason is still interpreted within contexts of one's experience or expertise. We cannot get away from various contexts.
Though tradition and scripture are the interpretive lens of understanding culture, these are not absolute, either. So, those in leadership must strategize, using their reason, about what outcome is to be valued and work to formulate how policy helps to form that outcome.
The outcome today is multicultural, and global. The multiculturalists values reason within contexts, while the critical realists understands that everyone's culture, cannot be the one and only outcome, as we must choose what is of ultimate importance.
We need critical realists that will defend Western civilization from its demise.
This morning it was reported that Germany is at odds with America over a NATO attack that killed Afghan citizens. Globalism creates division where it concerns the West's interest, because the West has bought into the multicultural "worldview where the West is dismissed on the basis of "imperialism", or "colonialism". The multiculturalists tries to rectify injustice through minority rights. And the unintended consequences is reverse discrimination.
Last night, on TV it was reported how the multiculturalists are re-writing our history, and labelling the heroes of our past with derogatory names, undermining thier work in building our culture of freedom and justice.
I think that we are headed for rough waters unless reason holds sway above multiculturalism. Multiculturalism will lead us toward communism, which undermines individual liberties. And individual liberties are only won under accountable and responsible leadership, who inform the public of the outcome, instead of "winning" through sleight of hand.
Monday, August 24, 2009
The Atom Bomb, Human Rights and Nation States
My husband had a conference in New Mexico this past week and "invited" me to go with him. I had never been to New Mexico, except for an overnight stay with our children on our across country trip many years ago.
As this was the week-end after our anniversary, my husband decided to give me the opportunity to experience this Southwestern State and celebrate our anniversary. It was a memorable experience, not just for "our celebration", but in what I learned.
On Saturday, after the conference was over, we drove through the mountains and attended an Indian art exhibition in Sante Fe. My husband wanted to continue up the mountains to Los Alamos and see where many physicists worked on the nuclear bomb during WWII.
I was not aware that there was a musuem in commemeration of these scientists, their work and the ongoing work of other scientists today. I had just gone through another musuem on the Holocost in downtown Albuquerque the previous week. The musuem was really about prejuidice and illustrated what inhumanity "looks like". These were human tragedies that scar the face of the world. And it gave me a "humanitarian context" to evaluate what I was viewing in our nation's history.
During this visit, I also had an opportunity to talk with a German, who was raised during WWII in Germany. He talked about how his uncles struggled with their resistance, and were unable to express their view of dissent. There was no freedom of expression, as they were to serve the Furher. I cringed to think how they must have struggled to maintain their dignity.
In the context of this visit, the "atom bomb" became a necessary evil . There was no other way, with the advancement of Hitler's army and his insane dependence on narcotics. He was not going to be stopped without some sort of force. His alliance with Russia and Italy made the war a world wide concern for "freedom" and "difference" itself.
Unfortunately, innocent lives were lost, but how many more would have been lost, if the Allied Forces had looked the other way and had not sought justice? Time had already been lost when America entered the war and with it, many countries had been conquered.
These scientists and their families were kept in isolation and worked frantically to discover nuclear power before Hilter did and used it to profit his own "selfish ambition". These scientists were awe struck at the results and some questioned what they had done.
What else could they have done or could we do?
We will continue to make the same mistakes, if we do not learn from the past. The question is what should we learn from the past? Are we to learn that people do not change? That people will assume power and subvert decency if justice, is not maintained?
Or should we learn that Hiroshima should never happen again? That humans should be "kind" to one another and understand difference? While these are "noble values", they cannot be the policy driving nations. Nations are to uphold justice for the law-abiding. Those who do not adhere to the 'rule of law' as it pertains to internatonal law, treaties between countries, are to be considered an "enemy". Enemies cannot be tolerated, when they undermine everyone's security. Of course, we do not want another nuclear explosion, and this is why we have tried to verify what countries have and how they plan to use it.
We cannot be naive. History has been replete with examples that without a "just government", where the "rule of law" upholds human rights, then we will see another Holocost, or worse. But, human rights cannot undermine national security, either.
America and the rest of the free world cannot be blind and short-sighted. We fight against those who do not allow liberty of conscience and do not value the freedom of the individual.
As this was the week-end after our anniversary, my husband decided to give me the opportunity to experience this Southwestern State and celebrate our anniversary. It was a memorable experience, not just for "our celebration", but in what I learned.
On Saturday, after the conference was over, we drove through the mountains and attended an Indian art exhibition in Sante Fe. My husband wanted to continue up the mountains to Los Alamos and see where many physicists worked on the nuclear bomb during WWII.
I was not aware that there was a musuem in commemeration of these scientists, their work and the ongoing work of other scientists today. I had just gone through another musuem on the Holocost in downtown Albuquerque the previous week. The musuem was really about prejuidice and illustrated what inhumanity "looks like". These were human tragedies that scar the face of the world. And it gave me a "humanitarian context" to evaluate what I was viewing in our nation's history.
During this visit, I also had an opportunity to talk with a German, who was raised during WWII in Germany. He talked about how his uncles struggled with their resistance, and were unable to express their view of dissent. There was no freedom of expression, as they were to serve the Furher. I cringed to think how they must have struggled to maintain their dignity.
In the context of this visit, the "atom bomb" became a necessary evil . There was no other way, with the advancement of Hitler's army and his insane dependence on narcotics. He was not going to be stopped without some sort of force. His alliance with Russia and Italy made the war a world wide concern for "freedom" and "difference" itself.
Unfortunately, innocent lives were lost, but how many more would have been lost, if the Allied Forces had looked the other way and had not sought justice? Time had already been lost when America entered the war and with it, many countries had been conquered.
These scientists and their families were kept in isolation and worked frantically to discover nuclear power before Hilter did and used it to profit his own "selfish ambition". These scientists were awe struck at the results and some questioned what they had done.
What else could they have done or could we do?
We will continue to make the same mistakes, if we do not learn from the past. The question is what should we learn from the past? Are we to learn that people do not change? That people will assume power and subvert decency if justice, is not maintained?
Or should we learn that Hiroshima should never happen again? That humans should be "kind" to one another and understand difference? While these are "noble values", they cannot be the policy driving nations. Nations are to uphold justice for the law-abiding. Those who do not adhere to the 'rule of law' as it pertains to internatonal law, treaties between countries, are to be considered an "enemy". Enemies cannot be tolerated, when they undermine everyone's security. Of course, we do not want another nuclear explosion, and this is why we have tried to verify what countries have and how they plan to use it.
We cannot be naive. History has been replete with examples that without a "just government", where the "rule of law" upholds human rights, then we will see another Holocost, or worse. But, human rights cannot undermine national security, either.
America and the rest of the free world cannot be blind and short-sighted. We fight against those who do not allow liberty of conscience and do not value the freedom of the individual.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
In Thinking About Aristocracy
History was never a subject that I delighted in during my schooling. Unfortunately, without an understanding of history, one is doomed to "repeat the mistakes of the past". History teaches us wisdom, as it helps us understand the "human element" that does not change. Government is to provide a framework to protect men from each other. It was never meant to be an oppressive force over individual liberties.
Since evolutionary theory is the "consensus" of most, and scientific investigation "works" upon the basis of the "pragmatic", we accept evolution as truth in science.
Evolution does not give us "human history", as we have developed from lower life forms. These life forms do not hold the "essence" of the human, but are the basic physical components of the "human". We really do not understand the human in these days of scientific understanding. But we are seeking for more information and understanding.
Evolution applied to human society defines civilization as human "engineering". Leaders plan, dominate and control what "is to be". These are the aristocracy in our societies. Aristocracy is a 'natural" occurrance in the world, as without leadership, nothing else will have focus, or vision. But, while aristocracy is the "natural" understanding of organizational structuring, free societies do not priviledge the aristocracy to be "above the law". Free societies depend on "law" to maintain order and structure in society, and not just leaders' visions, viewpoint, desires and opinions. Societies that function on the basis of a leader's "persona" are despotic.
Leaders in oppressive societies limit equality under law, subvert the law, or define the law arbitrarily. These societies seem to bring about a human resistance in reform or revolution, as humans are meant to live as individuals, defining themselves by their most important values. This is why America applauds "civil liberties". And no one is to be "above the law".
The natural order is structured by competition. Many think that this is wrong and attempt to "give life and choice" to those who have less of an edge on competition. These think that governing through "compassion" is the most important attribute to develop. Others think that competition, being the natural state of things should determine how we "use" the natrual order for the benefit of society. These believe that the market is the most productive way to "use" the natural order.
I believe our country affirms both values, as we believe in protecting the rights of the disabled, the minority, and the unfortunate. But, we disagree to what extint this should go in our society.
Competition is based on "self responsiblity" and "self governance" that protects the individual from their tendency to "not bear their weight". Compassion, on the other hand, lends help to those who cannot govern themselves, either through lack of training, or lack of ability. Our political parties are divided as to how these values are to be implemented and maintained. This is what our culture wars are about.
Is the aristocracy to be in government's hands, corporate hands, or individual hands? That is a big question of how we see the world, understand life and evaluate priorites.
Since evolutionary theory is the "consensus" of most, and scientific investigation "works" upon the basis of the "pragmatic", we accept evolution as truth in science.
Evolution does not give us "human history", as we have developed from lower life forms. These life forms do not hold the "essence" of the human, but are the basic physical components of the "human". We really do not understand the human in these days of scientific understanding. But we are seeking for more information and understanding.
Evolution applied to human society defines civilization as human "engineering". Leaders plan, dominate and control what "is to be". These are the aristocracy in our societies. Aristocracy is a 'natural" occurrance in the world, as without leadership, nothing else will have focus, or vision. But, while aristocracy is the "natural" understanding of organizational structuring, free societies do not priviledge the aristocracy to be "above the law". Free societies depend on "law" to maintain order and structure in society, and not just leaders' visions, viewpoint, desires and opinions. Societies that function on the basis of a leader's "persona" are despotic.
Leaders in oppressive societies limit equality under law, subvert the law, or define the law arbitrarily. These societies seem to bring about a human resistance in reform or revolution, as humans are meant to live as individuals, defining themselves by their most important values. This is why America applauds "civil liberties". And no one is to be "above the law".
The natural order is structured by competition. Many think that this is wrong and attempt to "give life and choice" to those who have less of an edge on competition. These think that governing through "compassion" is the most important attribute to develop. Others think that competition, being the natural state of things should determine how we "use" the natrual order for the benefit of society. These believe that the market is the most productive way to "use" the natural order.
I believe our country affirms both values, as we believe in protecting the rights of the disabled, the minority, and the unfortunate. But, we disagree to what extint this should go in our society.
Competition is based on "self responsiblity" and "self governance" that protects the individual from their tendency to "not bear their weight". Compassion, on the other hand, lends help to those who cannot govern themselves, either through lack of training, or lack of ability. Our political parties are divided as to how these values are to be implemented and maintained. This is what our culture wars are about.
Is the aristocracy to be in government's hands, corporate hands, or individual hands? That is a big question of how we see the world, understand life and evaluate priorites.
Friday, June 12, 2009
"Angels and Demons", Comments and Personal Opinion
My husband and I went to see " Angels and Demons" yesterday. We had heard the story a few years ago on CDs, while on our travels and he enjoyed it so much, he wanted to make sure we saw it before it left our local theatre.
We really enjoyed the movie and I would highly recommend it. It's theme is one that my husband has had interest in all his life, science and religion, but this movie does not ground its message in science fiction, so much as probable real life scenarios of "church history".
It was interesting not only for its content and acting, but because we just were in Rome and were at the very same locations as the film depicted. I think whenever real life experience intersects fiction, the fiction seems to present a "reality" that is confirmed by the person's ability to identify with the 'fiction". This is what is experienced in "conversion", as the stories of Scripture are translated by the person's experience. But conversion is not unlike any identification to other sources of literature that teach human tendencies, and moral dilemmas. Literature is a means of communicating and uniting us, as humans.
Reason is situated within a context of personal history itself and promotes the hermenuetic. On the other hand, those who adhere to a more ideological understanding of "truth", dismiss this aspect of personal experience/history, ignore "other realities", or behave in an irrational manner, because it "fits" within their particular hermeneutic of "truth". (Of course, in human relations, "irrational" is defined within its own context).
The priest in the movie, "Angels and Demons", was trying to protect the Church from science. His "ideological" commitment was not void of personal history in understanding the Church's nurturing influence in his own life. This was his "truth". In trying to protect God and the Church, he became a person who lacked integrity. He thought that science's discoveries had undermined the authority of the Church by undermining the Church's message. He wanted to continue to promote the diconnect between the sacred and the secular, so that the Church and God could continue to remain behind the "veil of faith", without engaging the real world in scientific endeavor.
We all have "commitments". Some of these are not consciously acknowledged, until they are challenged. We should not be upset by challenges, for anyone that seeks after truth, continues to do so, as it is a lifelong endeavor, that has many avenues. We will never come to the end of it.
We really enjoyed the movie and I would highly recommend it. It's theme is one that my husband has had interest in all his life, science and religion, but this movie does not ground its message in science fiction, so much as probable real life scenarios of "church history".
It was interesting not only for its content and acting, but because we just were in Rome and were at the very same locations as the film depicted. I think whenever real life experience intersects fiction, the fiction seems to present a "reality" that is confirmed by the person's ability to identify with the 'fiction". This is what is experienced in "conversion", as the stories of Scripture are translated by the person's experience. But conversion is not unlike any identification to other sources of literature that teach human tendencies, and moral dilemmas. Literature is a means of communicating and uniting us, as humans.
Reason is situated within a context of personal history itself and promotes the hermenuetic. On the other hand, those who adhere to a more ideological understanding of "truth", dismiss this aspect of personal experience/history, ignore "other realities", or behave in an irrational manner, because it "fits" within their particular hermeneutic of "truth". (Of course, in human relations, "irrational" is defined within its own context).
The priest in the movie, "Angels and Demons", was trying to protect the Church from science. His "ideological" commitment was not void of personal history in understanding the Church's nurturing influence in his own life. This was his "truth". In trying to protect God and the Church, he became a person who lacked integrity. He thought that science's discoveries had undermined the authority of the Church by undermining the Church's message. He wanted to continue to promote the diconnect between the sacred and the secular, so that the Church and God could continue to remain behind the "veil of faith", without engaging the real world in scientific endeavor.
We all have "commitments". Some of these are not consciously acknowledged, until they are challenged. We should not be upset by challenges, for anyone that seeks after truth, continues to do so, as it is a lifelong endeavor, that has many avenues. We will never come to the end of it.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
The Consent of the Governed and Religious Freedom
Politics is the domain where we work, play, worship, and live our lives. The political realm is the network of our communities, colleagues, and other social connections. What our political policy and understanding of government that runs the policy is an important one, as it affects all of life.
We are no longer ruled by "the divine right of kings". This is the prinicple of our revolution of England's king to reign over us. Taxation without representation was an important "pivot point" because those who led the revolution felt that all people were created equal under law. That we were not to be a colony, but an independent government. This had/has major implications in understanding faith.
Many fled to America for religious freedom, but finding a place to worship as one saw fit, did not alleviate the need to form a "government'. Church government became a point of contention and led to many dissentions and splits. Some sects thought that the "heretical" should suffer persecution, or worse, death. Those who held such views had not given up on the "divine right of God" and how they understood man's duty toward the "transcendental realm". These believed in a personal God. Believers were not the only ones that made American history, but it was a value that is upheld in our Constitution and the separation of Church and State.
Everyone has an understanding or an "ideal" of what government should "look like" and this is the realm of political discourse. It is the realm of what "should be" and "how it should be accomplished". For the most part, Republicans and Democrats have a different view about what that should look like. Although the political parties have political platforms that formally describe their positions, these positions differ in particular individuals within these parties. Some have even attempted to form a Third Party, but not with much sucess.
Republicans believe in "free market economics" and family values, limited government, etc., while the Democrats believe in social concern in government programs, enlarging government and limiting the free market.
I find that our freedoms politically are the most important value to uphold, as without freedom there is little room for development of individual values, commitments, beliefs, lifestyle, etc. Political freedom is valued by all humans.
The consent of the governed is based on social contract, ethics, human rights, and political freedom. We cannot have morality, or ethical choice apart from political freedom. This very freedom was what some came to our shores to find. Today, Americans have liberty because of the commitment of men and women who were willing to lay their lives down for it. We should do no less!
We are no longer ruled by "the divine right of kings". This is the prinicple of our revolution of England's king to reign over us. Taxation without representation was an important "pivot point" because those who led the revolution felt that all people were created equal under law. That we were not to be a colony, but an independent government. This had/has major implications in understanding faith.
Many fled to America for religious freedom, but finding a place to worship as one saw fit, did not alleviate the need to form a "government'. Church government became a point of contention and led to many dissentions and splits. Some sects thought that the "heretical" should suffer persecution, or worse, death. Those who held such views had not given up on the "divine right of God" and how they understood man's duty toward the "transcendental realm". These believed in a personal God. Believers were not the only ones that made American history, but it was a value that is upheld in our Constitution and the separation of Church and State.
Everyone has an understanding or an "ideal" of what government should "look like" and this is the realm of political discourse. It is the realm of what "should be" and "how it should be accomplished". For the most part, Republicans and Democrats have a different view about what that should look like. Although the political parties have political platforms that formally describe their positions, these positions differ in particular individuals within these parties. Some have even attempted to form a Third Party, but not with much sucess.
Republicans believe in "free market economics" and family values, limited government, etc., while the Democrats believe in social concern in government programs, enlarging government and limiting the free market.
I find that our freedoms politically are the most important value to uphold, as without freedom there is little room for development of individual values, commitments, beliefs, lifestyle, etc. Political freedom is valued by all humans.
The consent of the governed is based on social contract, ethics, human rights, and political freedom. We cannot have morality, or ethical choice apart from political freedom. This very freedom was what some came to our shores to find. Today, Americans have liberty because of the commitment of men and women who were willing to lay their lives down for it. We should do no less!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
