Is the law to be a positive "force" that makes demands upon our behavior? Or is the law to limit behavior because of necessity?
I believe that limited government unlines the negative view, as I believe in "self-governance", where the individual is able to choose his own life within the confines of our diverse culture.
Today's government seems to deem it necessary to "demand"...more taxes, more subsidies, more public healthcare, more "public good". These demands limit the volitional. We become enslabed to government demands.
Some believe that this form of government is upholding "moral order" as it "takes care" of the poor, and disabled. But, does it? Aren't those in power still living as they always have, while demanding a limitation, even a "sacrifice" on the average person'a part? This is immoral, if you ask me!
I think it undermines civil liberites to make demand. And civil liberites are what is garuanteed in our Constitutional government.
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Dis-Solving American Identity
Multiculturalism is based on the local and the specified. It is an individualized understanding of groupish identification factors. Multiculturalism's values are not "value free". Multiculturalism makes no "judgements" because prejuidice is the ultimate "sin". Multiculturalism is devoid of reason's "judgment" because of 'imperialistic and post-colonial paradigms of "meaning".
Although I wholeheartedly agree with our 13th and 14th Amendements to the Constitution, as to slavery, I do not think that subverting American ideals in the name of multiculturalism is to be the epitome of "unification of the world". The globalist would disagree. And the globalist is a postmodern in the ultimate sense of the word.
If postmodernism "rules", then there is no leadership, because leadership is based on direction, decision and commitment. Unfortunately, those in the halls of academia have led us down the postmodern paradigm, because of understanding the value of context. Understanding context is an important demension of understanding the whole, but is not the whole. Postmodernism bases their commitment to the local and communal aspects of the world. And I think the evangelical has been duped by the academic community in accepting the 'whole of postmodernism in the name of pragmatic good, but dissolved of universal value.
The universal's that our Founders affirmed of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were to be upheld for each individual conscience. The individual in our society was held supreme, as he was made in God's image and had inalienable rights. But, with the acceptance of evolutionary thinking applied to the social sciences, and history itself, the Academy became culprits of multicultrualism, and postmodernity, for the sake of these universal ethical ideals.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with understanding context, locality, or individuality, but these values do not affirm the values that should fulfill a leadership role and function. Leaders evaluate, analyze, and cultivate an understanding of the best of 'what is". Decisions leaders make are based on analytical, and strategic ways of understanding the world. The multicultural and postmodern way of understanding the world is an emphathetic way of understanding the world.
A world leader cannot lead unless these styles of understanding are all implemented. We cannot tell Israel to "do what she will" with Iran; not speak forthrightly to Iran about human rights; and ignore the democratic process of voters rights, without undermining democratic ideals and our Founders values as understood in the Constitution.
Although I wholeheartedly agree with our 13th and 14th Amendements to the Constitution, as to slavery, I do not think that subverting American ideals in the name of multiculturalism is to be the epitome of "unification of the world". The globalist would disagree. And the globalist is a postmodern in the ultimate sense of the word.
If postmodernism "rules", then there is no leadership, because leadership is based on direction, decision and commitment. Unfortunately, those in the halls of academia have led us down the postmodern paradigm, because of understanding the value of context. Understanding context is an important demension of understanding the whole, but is not the whole. Postmodernism bases their commitment to the local and communal aspects of the world. And I think the evangelical has been duped by the academic community in accepting the 'whole of postmodernism in the name of pragmatic good, but dissolved of universal value.
The universal's that our Founders affirmed of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were to be upheld for each individual conscience. The individual in our society was held supreme, as he was made in God's image and had inalienable rights. But, with the acceptance of evolutionary thinking applied to the social sciences, and history itself, the Academy became culprits of multicultrualism, and postmodernity, for the sake of these universal ethical ideals.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with understanding context, locality, or individuality, but these values do not affirm the values that should fulfill a leadership role and function. Leaders evaluate, analyze, and cultivate an understanding of the best of 'what is". Decisions leaders make are based on analytical, and strategic ways of understanding the world. The multicultural and postmodern way of understanding the world is an emphathetic way of understanding the world.
A world leader cannot lead unless these styles of understanding are all implemented. We cannot tell Israel to "do what she will" with Iran; not speak forthrightly to Iran about human rights; and ignore the democratic process of voters rights, without undermining democratic ideals and our Founders values as understood in the Constitution.
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.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Concern for America
Today is Constitution Day. I love my country, but have not been taught enough about it. This brings me to my blog entry today.
The Constitution says that we are a government that is "By the People and For the People"! This is Good News, as all men (gender neutral) are created equal. But, the bad news is that because we live in the land of the free, we Americans have sought our own lives at the costs of the nations. We have not been engaged in the public's business. And because we have become callous to our freedoms and allow other people to take care of it for us, we are becoming an enslaved nation!
Our enslavement is to our lavious lifestyles, where we live beyond our means and the creditors are knocking on our doors. The market is what drives our economy, which is fed on our greed and lust for power, money and stuff!
It is not just in economic concerns where we are enslaved, but we are also enslaved by our lack of engagement. Our government's framers created a government where all could be engaged. But, because of our lack of interest, those who hold the reigns of power have become the ones who run our country. Instead of our country being by the people and for the people, we are being led by others and for others' self interest.
Our news media on the major networks do not even cover news in depth, because most of us are not interested. We get a few dribbles about the economy, so we can complain about our government, but we don't get involved. We hear about things that concern our own pockets and have little interests in anything other than where it concerns our own domesic policy. I'm not arguing for a "one world "government, but only that our eyes would be opened to a larger engagement in our world. When the rulers become unaccountable and have conflicted interest, these rulers will choose their own self interest above the interst of the people! This attitude is not one of public service, but of self-indulgence.
We Americans need to wake up and smell the roses before it is too late. We are a free nation because of public concern and engagement. We are relying too much on our rulers to make the decisions for us and then we complain again if they use the military for interests that we would not approve.
We (I) need to care and become informed and involved.
The Constitution says that we are a government that is "By the People and For the People"! This is Good News, as all men (gender neutral) are created equal. But, the bad news is that because we live in the land of the free, we Americans have sought our own lives at the costs of the nations. We have not been engaged in the public's business. And because we have become callous to our freedoms and allow other people to take care of it for us, we are becoming an enslaved nation!
Our enslavement is to our lavious lifestyles, where we live beyond our means and the creditors are knocking on our doors. The market is what drives our economy, which is fed on our greed and lust for power, money and stuff!
It is not just in economic concerns where we are enslaved, but we are also enslaved by our lack of engagement. Our government's framers created a government where all could be engaged. But, because of our lack of interest, those who hold the reigns of power have become the ones who run our country. Instead of our country being by the people and for the people, we are being led by others and for others' self interest.
Our news media on the major networks do not even cover news in depth, because most of us are not interested. We get a few dribbles about the economy, so we can complain about our government, but we don't get involved. We hear about things that concern our own pockets and have little interests in anything other than where it concerns our own domesic policy. I'm not arguing for a "one world "government, but only that our eyes would be opened to a larger engagement in our world. When the rulers become unaccountable and have conflicted interest, these rulers will choose their own self interest above the interst of the people! This attitude is not one of public service, but of self-indulgence.
We Americans need to wake up and smell the roses before it is too late. We are a free nation because of public concern and engagement. We are relying too much on our rulers to make the decisions for us and then we complain again if they use the military for interests that we would not approve.
We (I) need to care and become informed and involved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
