"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society." Thomas Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson's quote affirms the natural right of individual liberty, which is the basis of human rights. Our country affirmed voluntary associations in society, and was founded on the principle that kings, oligarchies, and dictatorships were immoral forms of governing humans, as to individual liberty and conscience. The individual was what formed these voluntary associations.
Society is structured by individuals that form voluntary social networks for a particular purpose. Their goals are as diverse as the individuals that design them. So, how does one define such diversity of interests and purposes in our free society? One can't, and this is what makes America "free".
Individuals in America are valued as to their individual rights. Liberty is granted in the Bill of Rights, as to speech, assembly, civil jury trial, petition of greviances, and limits government as to search and seizure.While the individual adults have these protections, the individual child is impacted by society and how the family protects and develops his/her "potential". Family, is therefore, an important value to/for society.
Society cannot flourish as long as families are not supportive of the child's development. Government intervention "standardizes" and demoralizes the child, and does not provide the needed encouragement for the child to excel. Parents and teachers are the only ones that can impact the child in a personal way, once the child is school aged.
Religious and academic liberty are also values in American society and has made for our culture wars. While religion has valued the family, science has challenged religion's absolutes. And this has made for uncomfortable "bed-fellows" in our social climate. The polarization has become so defining that it is hard to get a word in "edge-wise" to bring about a solution to such societal tension.
But, it has been science that has brought about the prosperity of our nation and furthered American "hope" of the American Dream. The American Dream was the fulfillment of human potential and societal flourishing. Science was America's "hope" for a better tomorrow.
Religion, on the other hand, had to re-define itself, segregate itself, or battle for the 'Bible". Such re-orientations are not about human or societal flourishing, but oppression and tyranny of a "religious class". Religious liberty, in America, was the value of individual conscience and was granted by a protection of that liberty in our First Amendment. The State had no say about individual conscience in free association of this aspect of society. One could choose whether or not one wanted such association.
American society is not a "one size fits all formula", but a vast and complex mix of minds that form a society where human value is of utmost importance and society is as varied as the individuals that formulate it.
Showing posts with label academic freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label academic freedom. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Apologies, But, No Apologies
Apologies are offered to anyone that has "happened" upon this blog and been offended. I speak my personal opinion for two reasons.
The first is something I hold dear and cannot compromise. It is the value of the freedom of speech and the press!!! Without the right to speak one's mind, there is no freedom, but oppressive conformity to what is "politically correct". Political correctness subverts the ability for individuals and the populace to have information and come to conclusions themselves. I think this is a value we cannot undermine without undermining free society, itself.
The question comes as to what is appropriate. In a personal blog, I think it is appropriate and even mandantory to express what is on one's mind. And what one thinks. No one is bound to read anything that is written here, or anywhere else, as it is a way of me processing and coming to terms with values.
The other reason is just as important for me personally. I need to write my opinion, irregardless of what anyone else thinks. This is an attempt to assert myself, build courage to speak my mind, in spite of what has imposed itself upon me by environmental conditioning. Perhaps, it is an adolescent stage of "coming into my own". Or it may be a "mid-life" stage of finding my true voice. I don't know, yet. But, I hope to learn and grow in the process of exploring and come to terms with what I cannot give up. Thus, my stripping away of what seems to be extraneous. Critical thinking is necessary in this process. I may not have developed my thinking altogether, but I am trying and this is a good thing.
I believe that those that are secure in their convictions, and values, will not be offended by my "voice".
The first is something I hold dear and cannot compromise. It is the value of the freedom of speech and the press!!! Without the right to speak one's mind, there is no freedom, but oppressive conformity to what is "politically correct". Political correctness subverts the ability for individuals and the populace to have information and come to conclusions themselves. I think this is a value we cannot undermine without undermining free society, itself.
The question comes as to what is appropriate. In a personal blog, I think it is appropriate and even mandantory to express what is on one's mind. And what one thinks. No one is bound to read anything that is written here, or anywhere else, as it is a way of me processing and coming to terms with values.
The other reason is just as important for me personally. I need to write my opinion, irregardless of what anyone else thinks. This is an attempt to assert myself, build courage to speak my mind, in spite of what has imposed itself upon me by environmental conditioning. Perhaps, it is an adolescent stage of "coming into my own". Or it may be a "mid-life" stage of finding my true voice. I don't know, yet. But, I hope to learn and grow in the process of exploring and come to terms with what I cannot give up. Thus, my stripping away of what seems to be extraneous. Critical thinking is necessary in this process. I may not have developed my thinking altogether, but I am trying and this is a good thing.
I believe that those that are secure in their convictions, and values, will not be offended by my "voice".
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Intellectual Equality or the Political Gap?
Today, on Facebook, a very good and old friend had a test on "what kind of libertarian are you"...I took the test and had a few questions after taking it, mainly due to two answers to one of the questions that baffled me on which was of more importance.
The two categories that I find important are intellectual equality and fixing the political gap. Why are these two important? My innate desire to relate to people on an intellectual plane, which is "who I am", and yet, my experience has taught me that "political gaps" where people treat another as an unequal is also damaging. One errs on the side of snobbery and the other errs on the side of snubbery.
Leaders do make determinations about where others will fit into their plan for their own personal and larger political goals. And this is the political gap, where a determination is made about another that is prejuidiced and deterministic. I am revulsed over any type of pre-determination.
The point where my innate desire is to be treated as an equal intellectually is important. I resent people patronizing me, in whatever realm. I have a mind of my own and though you may disagree with me, I must be respected enough to be "engaged" and considered, without others determining my "outcome" or purpose. I also want to engage others on the same basis, in respecting their ability to reason and live their life rationally.
This is the main reason for my commitment to the libertarian party. Each person must determine their own destiny. That does not mean that an individual needs no one as far as guidance, or education, or suggestion, or encouragement. But, I will die for the right to be treated with respect and dignity in living my life on my own terms and for others to also have the right to live their life on their own terms. We will disagree and this is to be considered a healthy sign of difference where we can learn about another that thinks, believes and sees things differently.
This is where our freedoms become realities in our lives, as we live out the commitment to our diversity, but also our commitment to the unity of our freedoms. God Bless America.
The two categories that I find important are intellectual equality and fixing the political gap. Why are these two important? My innate desire to relate to people on an intellectual plane, which is "who I am", and yet, my experience has taught me that "political gaps" where people treat another as an unequal is also damaging. One errs on the side of snobbery and the other errs on the side of snubbery.
Leaders do make determinations about where others will fit into their plan for their own personal and larger political goals. And this is the political gap, where a determination is made about another that is prejuidiced and deterministic. I am revulsed over any type of pre-determination.
The point where my innate desire is to be treated as an equal intellectually is important. I resent people patronizing me, in whatever realm. I have a mind of my own and though you may disagree with me, I must be respected enough to be "engaged" and considered, without others determining my "outcome" or purpose. I also want to engage others on the same basis, in respecting their ability to reason and live their life rationally.
This is the main reason for my commitment to the libertarian party. Each person must determine their own destiny. That does not mean that an individual needs no one as far as guidance, or education, or suggestion, or encouragement. But, I will die for the right to be treated with respect and dignity in living my life on my own terms and for others to also have the right to live their life on their own terms. We will disagree and this is to be considered a healthy sign of difference where we can learn about another that thinks, believes and sees things differently.
This is where our freedoms become realities in our lives, as we live out the commitment to our diversity, but also our commitment to the unity of our freedoms. God Bless America.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Paternalism, Society's Banal "Ideal"
I believe in strong families, but unfortunately, our society has chosen other values above family values. These values have underpinned our economic prosperity and our society's flourishing materialism.
We, in America, believe in individualism, and the free market, which rewards those who persevere in their goals. This entreprenurial spirit has blessed us with many technological advantages, that have made our society more convienient. And convienience has led to our "way of life" in pursuing leisure activities. This is good and bad for our society.
While I believe that the family is the most important focus for society and human flourishing, I also believe in individuality, independence to pursue one's goals, and the free market economy that makes for prosperity.
Many think that paternalism is the way for society to function. These believe that society's institutions of government and Church should underwrite and provide for families. I do think that there should be a "safety net" for those that find themselves in circumstances beyond their control. But, I do not think that govenment or Church should underwrite irresponsibility in financial or human affairs.
Paternalistic attitudes, whether through the 'welfare state", "discipleship programs", or "elite intellectualism" is a bane on the "ideal" society, because it limits growth of individual participants in society at large. Those who are "leaders" in paternalistic and patroninzing environments must have a grandoise sense of "self". Paternalism determines goals "ahead of time" to insure "outcomes", instead of allowing human freedom, decision, and commitment. Paternalism undermines human choice, individual differences and true justice.
We, in America, believe in individualism, and the free market, which rewards those who persevere in their goals. This entreprenurial spirit has blessed us with many technological advantages, that have made our society more convienient. And convienience has led to our "way of life" in pursuing leisure activities. This is good and bad for our society.
While I believe that the family is the most important focus for society and human flourishing, I also believe in individuality, independence to pursue one's goals, and the free market economy that makes for prosperity.
Many think that paternalism is the way for society to function. These believe that society's institutions of government and Church should underwrite and provide for families. I do think that there should be a "safety net" for those that find themselves in circumstances beyond their control. But, I do not think that govenment or Church should underwrite irresponsibility in financial or human affairs.
Paternalistic attitudes, whether through the 'welfare state", "discipleship programs", or "elite intellectualism" is a bane on the "ideal" society, because it limits growth of individual participants in society at large. Those who are "leaders" in paternalistic and patroninzing environments must have a grandoise sense of "self". Paternalism determines goals "ahead of time" to insure "outcomes", instead of allowing human freedom, decision, and commitment. Paternalism undermines human choice, individual differences and true justice.
Friday, October 2, 2009
The Sacred and Secular Faith
Religion exists because we define and distinguish between the sacred and secular. But, what if everything is seen as sacred, if used in the proper way? Isn't this view looking at life as graced?
Why do the religious have to make distinctions? Is it because the religious love to think they are especially special? Ot that their group is more holy or 'true" to Christian faith than another? Are these distinctions because this is how every group defines themselves...in contrast to another group?
Why do the religious need to feel special? Is it because they were never special in their families of origin? Is it because this is what they have always been taught and have always believed?
I think that evangelical faith is taught and caught, but it is mainly emotionally driven and experienctially focused. There is no real substance to evangelical faith. And evangelicals believe that this is good, because reason is suspect.
I remember taking a course 10 years ago. The professor was teaching on "biblical Chsitianity" and I remember wondering why he added "biblical" to Christian, as if there was any other kind of Christian.
This course set "secular philosophy" over against "biblical revelation". Tertullion's "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem" was the 'battle cry of this course. "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church", etc. This view sacralizes sacrifice, and marginalizes philosophy.
This view sets up a dichotomy to faith and reason. This is supernaturalism's strength and many denominations believe in this type of 'Christian faith'.
Another view is that nature itself is graced. This view does not see human nature as totally depraved and in need of supernatural rescue, but a deprivation of nature that needs nurture and grace. One is a Reformed Protestant view, while the other is a more Catholic view.
As I have been thinking about faith and reason, I have come to the conclusion that there can be no universal way that an individual develops faith. But, I think that if one comes to faith through personal experience, where revelation was of primary importance, then there is need for a develpment of reaon's need of development. Reason can be the friend of faith, because it is grounded in the "real world".
Students that come to our university can sometimes be idealistic and think that there is something "more" special about a radical faith that is separated from the 'real world" or separated from rationale or reason. This is where I believe that professors and mentors can help these young adults to understand their faith in a broader way. This is important, otherwise, some may never develop their unique gifts and much would be lost to the world.
Evangelicals can be prime culprits of this kind of thinking because evangelicalism is grounded in experience and revelation, at the expense of reason and traditon.
I think the answer is understanding how reason can be grounded in the real world and be faithful to faith, is found in our form of government, a Representative Republic. And this grounding allows faith individual expression and conscience, while the proper use of power is balanced across three branches of government. The individual has a choice or voice in the process of their representation. Otherwise, one is determined under a "Sovereign" supernaturalistic, super-intending God, without personal choice. And choice is of primary importance in the theme of 'freedom'. And freedom is what justice is about.
Why do the religious have to make distinctions? Is it because the religious love to think they are especially special? Ot that their group is more holy or 'true" to Christian faith than another? Are these distinctions because this is how every group defines themselves...in contrast to another group?
Why do the religious need to feel special? Is it because they were never special in their families of origin? Is it because this is what they have always been taught and have always believed?
I think that evangelical faith is taught and caught, but it is mainly emotionally driven and experienctially focused. There is no real substance to evangelical faith. And evangelicals believe that this is good, because reason is suspect.
I remember taking a course 10 years ago. The professor was teaching on "biblical Chsitianity" and I remember wondering why he added "biblical" to Christian, as if there was any other kind of Christian.
This course set "secular philosophy" over against "biblical revelation". Tertullion's "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem" was the 'battle cry of this course. "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church", etc. This view sacralizes sacrifice, and marginalizes philosophy.
This view sets up a dichotomy to faith and reason. This is supernaturalism's strength and many denominations believe in this type of 'Christian faith'.
Another view is that nature itself is graced. This view does not see human nature as totally depraved and in need of supernatural rescue, but a deprivation of nature that needs nurture and grace. One is a Reformed Protestant view, while the other is a more Catholic view.
As I have been thinking about faith and reason, I have come to the conclusion that there can be no universal way that an individual develops faith. But, I think that if one comes to faith through personal experience, where revelation was of primary importance, then there is need for a develpment of reaon's need of development. Reason can be the friend of faith, because it is grounded in the "real world".
Students that come to our university can sometimes be idealistic and think that there is something "more" special about a radical faith that is separated from the 'real world" or separated from rationale or reason. This is where I believe that professors and mentors can help these young adults to understand their faith in a broader way. This is important, otherwise, some may never develop their unique gifts and much would be lost to the world.
Evangelicals can be prime culprits of this kind of thinking because evangelicalism is grounded in experience and revelation, at the expense of reason and traditon.
I think the answer is understanding how reason can be grounded in the real world and be faithful to faith, is found in our form of government, a Representative Republic. And this grounding allows faith individual expression and conscience, while the proper use of power is balanced across three branches of government. The individual has a choice or voice in the process of their representation. Otherwise, one is determined under a "Sovereign" supernaturalistic, super-intending God, without personal choice. And choice is of primary importance in the theme of 'freedom'. And freedom is what justice is about.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
The U.N. Talk and Obama's Vision
I listened to Obama talk at the U.N. on radio and T.V. And I was impressed with his commitment to serve and represent American interests. But, he called for all nations to step forward in helping America fulfill the responsibility toward many social issues. I was glad that we were not going to be footing the whole bill.
Although he gave a great speech and many were positive in their reviews, I am a little wary of Lybian and Iranian interests. They did not seem to be interested in applauding our president during his speech, although Kadafi did acknowledge Obama's speech when he took the "stage".
I just wonder how much power can be distributed to the likes of these and still hold to democratic ideals? It doesn't seem that those who do not give their own countries a democratic type of government would lend an ear to ideals of "life and liberty".
China seemed from some accounts of their people to be open to taking a center stage place in the power re-distribution. America isn't to be the super-power anymore? Is this because we owe so many people and are really a "slave nation" today? But, the rhetoric was strongly focused toward a unified "one world".
On NPR there was a program taking calls to get feed-back worldwide on the speeches. One lady asked who would be making the ultimate decisions concerning a nation if a "one world governemt came into being. This is an important question, as it reveals that power will not be broad-based. The commentator answered that, of course, the decisions would be made by the
monied". Will the "monied" be a nation, like China, or will the "monied" be a group of people? These are pertinent questions in understanding what we can expect in the future in regards to our very "way of life".
I imagine there is little we can do globally, but we can do something nationally and I hope we will. The "Tea Parties" are a start and I think that if enough people raise their voices, then certainly someone will hear. We must try and not give up hope for our nation's recovery.
I will wait now and see if Obama does what he says for Amercian interests. And how much he upholds the values of human freedom and dignity to choose our own destinies. This is mandantory if we are to live in the future as free people.
Although he gave a great speech and many were positive in their reviews, I am a little wary of Lybian and Iranian interests. They did not seem to be interested in applauding our president during his speech, although Kadafi did acknowledge Obama's speech when he took the "stage".
I just wonder how much power can be distributed to the likes of these and still hold to democratic ideals? It doesn't seem that those who do not give their own countries a democratic type of government would lend an ear to ideals of "life and liberty".
China seemed from some accounts of their people to be open to taking a center stage place in the power re-distribution. America isn't to be the super-power anymore? Is this because we owe so many people and are really a "slave nation" today? But, the rhetoric was strongly focused toward a unified "one world".
On NPR there was a program taking calls to get feed-back worldwide on the speeches. One lady asked who would be making the ultimate decisions concerning a nation if a "one world governemt came into being. This is an important question, as it reveals that power will not be broad-based. The commentator answered that, of course, the decisions would be made by the
monied". Will the "monied" be a nation, like China, or will the "monied" be a group of people? These are pertinent questions in understanding what we can expect in the future in regards to our very "way of life".
I imagine there is little we can do globally, but we can do something nationally and I hope we will. The "Tea Parties" are a start and I think that if enough people raise their voices, then certainly someone will hear. We must try and not give up hope for our nation's recovery.
I will wait now and see if Obama does what he says for Amercian interests. And how much he upholds the values of human freedom and dignity to choose our own destinies. This is mandantory if we are to live in the future as free people.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
What Do You Do?
What do you do when someone 'knows best" or "better for you" than you do yourself? Although we all need support and 'another set of eyes" to see at times, others are not omniscient or omnipotent.Those who think this way are dangerous. These think that their understanding, the way they see things, is all there is, because they are "omnipresent". Time nor boundaries have no meaning to them, because they disregard history. These tout 'supernatural revelation", or knowledge, insight, or experience. Their experience is universal.
I do believe that history is a teacher of wisdom. It leads to understanding, but not "Truth", as we are individuals, so there is personal history. We are also citizens, so there is national history..
In coming to understand more about my own "national history", I think that it is a shame that our political leaders deem it necessary to make changes that the people have not favored. I had understood our representative republic to not only represent the people's interests in protecting national security, but also that these "leaders" were deemed worthy by the consent of the governed. Why will they not give up? Why don't they address what concerns the American people? Have we sold ourselves so far into debt that there is "no way back"? Are we headed to a new "ruling elite" that demands our service and sacrifice?
It was reported that Biden said that though the American people would "kick and scream' that there would be health reform of some kind passed. Why are we not given more information about why this is so imperative. Why are we setting aside other issues for this one? Why is this one of the greatest importance. We haven't even been given a straightforward answer about what the proposed plan would be.
On the radio, I heard that many parents were outraged over Obama's proposed "propaganda machine". They are concerned for their children, and rightly so. Why? Because Obama is calling for the children to think of ways they can serve their country. That is all well and good and many parents would oblige that "call" to service, but Obama does more than this. He calls for their allegience and service to him. This goes a little "beyond the pale", I think. And he uses celebrities to "do his service". Gullible children are given a message by those who they have seen on TV or in the movies about how they are to behave.
I am sure that the "goal" is to train children to be public servants. But, educators cannot train thier students to be public servants at the costs of "critical thinking" and academic freedom. We are a nation that believes in freedom of thought and the right to express that thought.
There has been some debate about how much freedom should be allowed on the internet. Some think that the internet is a fabulous way to distribute information and thus, empower, the people. This is a good thing, generally speaking. But, it is not so good, if it causes national security breaches or dismisses privacy laws.
What do we do? Continue to speak out against any form of propaganda or plays for public sentiment at the costs of reasoned discourse.
What should we do? I think I will leave that up to your conscience.
I do believe that history is a teacher of wisdom. It leads to understanding, but not "Truth", as we are individuals, so there is personal history. We are also citizens, so there is national history..
In coming to understand more about my own "national history", I think that it is a shame that our political leaders deem it necessary to make changes that the people have not favored. I had understood our representative republic to not only represent the people's interests in protecting national security, but also that these "leaders" were deemed worthy by the consent of the governed. Why will they not give up? Why don't they address what concerns the American people? Have we sold ourselves so far into debt that there is "no way back"? Are we headed to a new "ruling elite" that demands our service and sacrifice?
It was reported that Biden said that though the American people would "kick and scream' that there would be health reform of some kind passed. Why are we not given more information about why this is so imperative. Why are we setting aside other issues for this one? Why is this one of the greatest importance. We haven't even been given a straightforward answer about what the proposed plan would be.
On the radio, I heard that many parents were outraged over Obama's proposed "propaganda machine". They are concerned for their children, and rightly so. Why? Because Obama is calling for the children to think of ways they can serve their country. That is all well and good and many parents would oblige that "call" to service, but Obama does more than this. He calls for their allegience and service to him. This goes a little "beyond the pale", I think. And he uses celebrities to "do his service". Gullible children are given a message by those who they have seen on TV or in the movies about how they are to behave.
I am sure that the "goal" is to train children to be public servants. But, educators cannot train thier students to be public servants at the costs of "critical thinking" and academic freedom. We are a nation that believes in freedom of thought and the right to express that thought.
There has been some debate about how much freedom should be allowed on the internet. Some think that the internet is a fabulous way to distribute information and thus, empower, the people. This is a good thing, generally speaking. But, it is not so good, if it causes national security breaches or dismisses privacy laws.
What do we do? Continue to speak out against any form of propaganda or plays for public sentiment at the costs of reasoned discourse.
What should we do? I think I will leave that up to your conscience.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Politicizing and Politicing
I have become a skeptic that anything happens apart from politics. This brings me to the point of questionig the present political situation and policies.
Does anyone believe that we are to be responsible citizens and accountable to the laws that rule our land? Is this what being a Christian is about? Or is being a Christian about allowing others to be irresponsible?
Are we to look the other way when there is dishonesty, hyposcrisy, and abuse of power in our leaders? Are we to be honored as citizens in a representative republic by being informed of the discussions on policy and our "voices" considered in the process?
I think that the whole healthcare concern is a passionate ideological grab for power over the American people. And it is being done in a dishonest and power driven way. This is not what our country should be about.
Our economy is suffering under "social concerns". Warren Buffet has warned that we are headed to be a "banana Republic" if we do not turn back this downturn. But, the economy has been demonized as "greed", "love of money" and self-centeredness. Is this "blanket statement", really true across the board? Are Americans greedy, money hungry, self-centered individuals?
We have seen our country's economy "politicized" and our very founding principles undermined for the "common good". We were founded on individual right of conscience. The conscience of religious freedom and public interest. But, the "public interest", is not what is now called the "common good", as we were never a "socialist republic".
Healthcare is being politicized on a "moral basis" of "taking care of the poor". While we have built our nation on hard work and reward, we see our country being "called into question". While there is no doubt that Wall Street and others have mis-used our system to the detriment of all, we cannot throw the "baby out with the bath water".
I am concerned for our country's future and hope that our leaders will listen, as well as govern. We are not a people that is used to submission at the costs of "voice".
Does anyone believe that we are to be responsible citizens and accountable to the laws that rule our land? Is this what being a Christian is about? Or is being a Christian about allowing others to be irresponsible?
Are we to look the other way when there is dishonesty, hyposcrisy, and abuse of power in our leaders? Are we to be honored as citizens in a representative republic by being informed of the discussions on policy and our "voices" considered in the process?
I think that the whole healthcare concern is a passionate ideological grab for power over the American people. And it is being done in a dishonest and power driven way. This is not what our country should be about.
Our economy is suffering under "social concerns". Warren Buffet has warned that we are headed to be a "banana Republic" if we do not turn back this downturn. But, the economy has been demonized as "greed", "love of money" and self-centeredness. Is this "blanket statement", really true across the board? Are Americans greedy, money hungry, self-centered individuals?
We have seen our country's economy "politicized" and our very founding principles undermined for the "common good". We were founded on individual right of conscience. The conscience of religious freedom and public interest. But, the "public interest", is not what is now called the "common good", as we were never a "socialist republic".
Healthcare is being politicized on a "moral basis" of "taking care of the poor". While we have built our nation on hard work and reward, we see our country being "called into question". While there is no doubt that Wall Street and others have mis-used our system to the detriment of all, we cannot throw the "baby out with the bath water".
I am concerned for our country's future and hope that our leaders will listen, as well as govern. We are not a people that is used to submission at the costs of "voice".
Sunday, August 16, 2009
What I Am Reading...
I have been reading and am committed to finish some books within the week.
One is on "Ten Philosophical Mistakes" by Mortimer J. Adler, I have just finished. I have learned that there is a difference in intellect and sense perception. This difference distinguishes the human from the animal kingdom.
I have also learned that potentialities are what distinguishes the differences in behavior from the animal and human. And I believe that liberty is the only means of attaining and developing potential.
I also am thinking through "natural state", "the state of nature" and "social contract", and the development of "constitutional government" as the "ideal" of the real historical understanding of "context".
Another book I am beginning, " The Discovery of Freedom" (Man's Struggle Against Authority), by, Rose Wilder Lane and "A Plea for Liberty", a mixture of writers writing on the topic of liberty.
I plan on furthering my understanding and education in what has interested me.
I find the topic of liberty always pertinent to man's "identity", but especially in today's climate of maintaining a "social agenda", which politicizes the "moral", at the costs of other necessary truths. I must resolve what I believe to be the undermining of what makes the human different from the animal. And that is the diversity and uniqueness that is only granted under a "constitutional republic" ( or is it a "liberal democracy"?).
One is on "Ten Philosophical Mistakes" by Mortimer J. Adler, I have just finished. I have learned that there is a difference in intellect and sense perception. This difference distinguishes the human from the animal kingdom.
I have also learned that potentialities are what distinguishes the differences in behavior from the animal and human. And I believe that liberty is the only means of attaining and developing potential.
I also am thinking through "natural state", "the state of nature" and "social contract", and the development of "constitutional government" as the "ideal" of the real historical understanding of "context".
Another book I am beginning, " The Discovery of Freedom" (Man's Struggle Against Authority), by, Rose Wilder Lane and "A Plea for Liberty", a mixture of writers writing on the topic of liberty.
I plan on furthering my understanding and education in what has interested me.
I find the topic of liberty always pertinent to man's "identity", but especially in today's climate of maintaining a "social agenda", which politicizes the "moral", at the costs of other necessary truths. I must resolve what I believe to be the undermining of what makes the human different from the animal. And that is the diversity and uniqueness that is only granted under a "constitutional republic" ( or is it a "liberal democracy"?).
Monday, July 6, 2009
What in the World?
This morning it was reported that there is a crackdown in China against the Muslims. Riots were shown on TV. Yesterday, in Church it was reported that an island off the coast of India is persecuting the Christian population, which is 1%. Just recently, Korea shot missiles to show the world their power. What in the world is happening?
I think that the nationalizing of our healthcare is a power grab as well. Some of our companies cease to be privately owned and the government has gotten involved in mortagages for the poor.
A.C.O.R.N. is not being investigates, as John Connally, head of the Judiacary Committee reports that he was stopped. BY WHO AND WHY? Americorps and World Vision has been caught in power grabs. There seems to be no end to the way that power is exerting itself against the "common person". Privitization is being dismissed as selfishness. But, is it?
One of our Founders warned that when government starts stealing, undermining or federalizing the Treasury, then we will become slaves! Is this to be our future?
It seems that since many in the American population have been squeezed because of the recent economic downturn. Those who have lived off credit, live in expensive areas, or lived for money and power are dismayed. Some have given up hope altogether and committed in ultimate hopeless act of taking their own life.
Is such hopelessness causing us to feel helpless, so that we will not care anymore about our government and what the Founders set in motion to protect private property? Liberty of conscience, the private and the publice, the Church and State were set at "odds" to one another for a reason. It was the allowance of individual freedoms and rights. Today we hear of 'public interests", the "public or common good". Where are private interests? Where are human rights?
The ethical can never dissolve the individual without undermining liberty altogether. Is the government "stealing our lives", so that we become enslaved to government's power to "help". We have no other resource. We will be a people of entitled dependence!
I am truly disturbed. I am grateful for a few brave voices that hold government accountable. But, we should all be doing whatever we can to prevent government's corruption throught absolutizing government power.
I am afraid that when the American people suffer, they are too caught up with their own personal pain to be concerned about the real public interest and public good.
I think that the nationalizing of our healthcare is a power grab as well. Some of our companies cease to be privately owned and the government has gotten involved in mortagages for the poor.
A.C.O.R.N. is not being investigates, as John Connally, head of the Judiacary Committee reports that he was stopped. BY WHO AND WHY? Americorps and World Vision has been caught in power grabs. There seems to be no end to the way that power is exerting itself against the "common person". Privitization is being dismissed as selfishness. But, is it?
One of our Founders warned that when government starts stealing, undermining or federalizing the Treasury, then we will become slaves! Is this to be our future?
It seems that since many in the American population have been squeezed because of the recent economic downturn. Those who have lived off credit, live in expensive areas, or lived for money and power are dismayed. Some have given up hope altogether and committed in ultimate hopeless act of taking their own life.
Is such hopelessness causing us to feel helpless, so that we will not care anymore about our government and what the Founders set in motion to protect private property? Liberty of conscience, the private and the publice, the Church and State were set at "odds" to one another for a reason. It was the allowance of individual freedoms and rights. Today we hear of 'public interests", the "public or common good". Where are private interests? Where are human rights?
The ethical can never dissolve the individual without undermining liberty altogether. Is the government "stealing our lives", so that we become enslaved to government's power to "help". We have no other resource. We will be a people of entitled dependence!
I am truly disturbed. I am grateful for a few brave voices that hold government accountable. But, we should all be doing whatever we can to prevent government's corruption throught absolutizing government power.
I am afraid that when the American people suffer, they are too caught up with their own personal pain to be concerned about the real public interest and public good.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
14 th Ammendment
The Fourteenth Amendment states that slaves have equal access to due process. This ammendment protects everyone from tyrannical government which would steal from the individual his liberty, life or property. There must be a hearing.
Slaves are equal under law. And now we have a president whose ancesters "could" have been slaves. Only in America.
We are so fortunate that we do not have to fear a seizure of our property (unless one is thinking of taxes!). We are a people that is protect through the rights and freedoms that this country provides. Thanks be to our Founders and their wisdom.
Slaves are equal under law. And now we have a president whose ancesters "could" have been slaves. Only in America.
We are so fortunate that we do not have to fear a seizure of our property (unless one is thinking of taxes!). We are a people that is protect through the rights and freedoms that this country provides. Thanks be to our Founders and their wisdom.
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.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
An American's View of Value
While my husband and I were in Europe, our youngest son was sworn into the U.S. military. We value the military for its commitment to democracy and upholding and protecting our Constitution, under the authority of our president. But, our values were not the value in most of the European friends and family that we know and I begin to question why this was so....
While sitting with some European friends at dinner, we were sharing about our children and when we shared that our son was going into service, the wife questioned how I felt about that. I sat quietly, at first, as I weighed what I would say. And then, I compared service to the military with the husband's job at Phillips. Although one may not agree to every decision that is made by company managers, there is an overall agreement and upholding of company values and vision. This was similar to anyone that wanted to serve their country in the military.
Our country's values of "ordered liberty" is a value that we take for granted. We must not take these freedoms for granted, but be indebted to our fore-fathers for forseeing what the costs would be if there was no protection of these values.
All of the Europeans that we spoke to and we questioned about the European Paraliment could not give us a concrete vision or purpose for its establishment. Granted that there must be a way to order the vast differences of the individual European countries. The problems have resulted in unification at the sacrifice of individual identity. And this is one reason why Switzerland has not joined the European Union.
Our son's life is being committed to the values we have upheld for him, because we believe that all men are created equal, not in aptitude, but in innate being, as a human being. Human dignity is the basis of human rights, which some religious do not value. We should not apologize for these values, for they represent the highest form of moral order. We tolerate the intolerant at our detriment and our demise. How do we protect those who do not know they "need" protection, or do not value liberty, because they have not experienced it? I don't know, but I am so thankful to have had the freedom that we have in America.
Americans, and anyone who values individuality should uphold American government and defend its ideals. Our family has given their lives for these ideals to be protected and we think this is of ultimate value!
While sitting with some European friends at dinner, we were sharing about our children and when we shared that our son was going into service, the wife questioned how I felt about that. I sat quietly, at first, as I weighed what I would say. And then, I compared service to the military with the husband's job at Phillips. Although one may not agree to every decision that is made by company managers, there is an overall agreement and upholding of company values and vision. This was similar to anyone that wanted to serve their country in the military.
Our country's values of "ordered liberty" is a value that we take for granted. We must not take these freedoms for granted, but be indebted to our fore-fathers for forseeing what the costs would be if there was no protection of these values.
All of the Europeans that we spoke to and we questioned about the European Paraliment could not give us a concrete vision or purpose for its establishment. Granted that there must be a way to order the vast differences of the individual European countries. The problems have resulted in unification at the sacrifice of individual identity. And this is one reason why Switzerland has not joined the European Union.
Our son's life is being committed to the values we have upheld for him, because we believe that all men are created equal, not in aptitude, but in innate being, as a human being. Human dignity is the basis of human rights, which some religious do not value. We should not apologize for these values, for they represent the highest form of moral order. We tolerate the intolerant at our detriment and our demise. How do we protect those who do not know they "need" protection, or do not value liberty, because they have not experienced it? I don't know, but I am so thankful to have had the freedom that we have in America.
Americans, and anyone who values individuality should uphold American government and defend its ideals. Our family has given their lives for these ideals to be protected and we think this is of ultimate value!
Thursday, May 14, 2009
A European's View of Future Danger
My husband's brother in law was telling us this morning that the birth rate for Euopeans is about 1.3, while the birth rate of Muslims is a lot higher. Why is he worried? Several reasons were given and they gave me room for thought...
He said that the Dutch culture was "dying" due to the infilteration of the Muslims, who use the tolerance of the Dutch to undermine Western values. He said that there was a priest who had been banned from a Christian school due to intolerance to Islam, and he gave other instances of Muslim use of religious tolerance to bring about a reverse discrimination. This is very disturbing when you consider how many immigrants are infilterating the culture and expanding their numbers by enlarging their families. In a couple of decades, he prophesizes that Shairia Law will have rule over Europe if nothing is done to stop it.
Westerners have been concerned for the planet's limited resources, and have limited their population growth., as a result Civilized societies have ceased to base their views on sacred sources, therefore, where Scripture has commanded man to '"be fruitful and multiply", the West has deemed it ïrrelavant as authoritative. Science has replaced religion in authoratative influence.
Science is not "pie in the sky", but proveable through observation, experimentation, and manipulation. Man has taken the reigns of power and determined his own destiny through the power of science''s knowledge. While science has empowered the West, the West also knows its dangers. Those who are religiously minded and do not heed the dangers of science, are even more dangerous. as they use the sword as the 'weapon of God'. This is why our national security is of utmost importance. We must in the West not abandon NATO. but, seek to broaden the influence of protecting science from hands that would use scientific power subversively.
Religious freedom and tolerance has been the bulwark of the West, but our strength may become our weakness, if we do not wake up to the insidiousness of religion's influence and power. Those who think they speak for God are a danger to civilization. Secular humanists are right in their call to tighten the belt against religion's rights in the West.
I really don't know which is worse, a totaltalirian secularized State, or a totaltalarian religious regime. Both subvert something that is distinctly human; choice. freedom and religious conviction.
He said that the Dutch culture was "dying" due to the infilteration of the Muslims, who use the tolerance of the Dutch to undermine Western values. He said that there was a priest who had been banned from a Christian school due to intolerance to Islam, and he gave other instances of Muslim use of religious tolerance to bring about a reverse discrimination. This is very disturbing when you consider how many immigrants are infilterating the culture and expanding their numbers by enlarging their families. In a couple of decades, he prophesizes that Shairia Law will have rule over Europe if nothing is done to stop it.
Westerners have been concerned for the planet's limited resources, and have limited their population growth., as a result Civilized societies have ceased to base their views on sacred sources, therefore, where Scripture has commanded man to '"be fruitful and multiply", the West has deemed it ïrrelavant as authoritative. Science has replaced religion in authoratative influence.
Science is not "pie in the sky", but proveable through observation, experimentation, and manipulation. Man has taken the reigns of power and determined his own destiny through the power of science''s knowledge. While science has empowered the West, the West also knows its dangers. Those who are religiously minded and do not heed the dangers of science, are even more dangerous. as they use the sword as the 'weapon of God'. This is why our national security is of utmost importance. We must in the West not abandon NATO. but, seek to broaden the influence of protecting science from hands that would use scientific power subversively.
Religious freedom and tolerance has been the bulwark of the West, but our strength may become our weakness, if we do not wake up to the insidiousness of religion's influence and power. Those who think they speak for God are a danger to civilization. Secular humanists are right in their call to tighten the belt against religion's rights in the West.
I really don't know which is worse, a totaltalirian secularized State, or a totaltalarian religious regime. Both subvert something that is distinctly human; choice. freedom and religious conviction.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Questions About Trust
This morning while checking my e-mail, I had gotten a comment on the "A Few Good Men" entry. In responsing to the comment, I suggested that although support systems were important for the young lawyer to pursue justice, that trust was the foundation of receiving the support. That got me thinking...
Trust is earned by someone's belief in what you do, or who you are. Trust cannot be manipulated, as trust is about relationship. Trust is about understanding and accountability. One does not listen to those who have abused, misused, or disregarded the relationship. Relationship has to be mutually edifying for it to be healthy.
Mutuality in relationship is about allowing differences, respecting rights, supporting opportunities, and giving hope. It is the social contract, where there is equal respect and regard for another's life and values.
In all relationships, there is a give and take, at least if there is healthy mutuality. Hierarchal forms of relationship can be healthy as long as there is also respect and encouragement from "both ends", not a demand to rights, but a trust that there will be "a right". Respect is foremost in regards to trust in relationship.
I find that when workers felt their rights were being abused that they sought recourse in just compensation for their work. One wonders now, what just compensation means, when those in other countries will do the work for less. Cultural living standards differ, and the American worker is disadvantaged by his own culture's standard, which has become his own.
While the worker had sought rights and won "justice", the executive has used his power to exploit and use his position and power to maintain even a higher standard of living. There seemed to be an attitude of entitlement on both ends, which built resentment and a lack of mutual respect and trust. Outsourcing jobs was a means to make more profit for the executive to "look good" and to exploit the system he had created, and benefit the stock holders, while the worker's right to work was devalued and undermined., creating an esculating environment between the worker and the boss.
I do not know the solution, but I do know that our globalized economy has exasperated the problems in corporate and private interests. Now, the government gets involved, which compounds the problem and creates a quadmire of beauraucracy that is hard to hold accountable. The citizen cannot be informed because it takes a legal mind to understand. And sometimes I think this is a convienient way to enlarge one's pockets of interests.
There is not to be a separation between a public servant's job and the private citizen's right to know, which is what the "tea parties" have sought to "voice". This is a "voice" for public good and social justice, but there are other "voices" that do not need respect. These are the attitudes of the Taliban or the antagonist. One can have convictions or opinions without oppressing another or demanding that the other agree and behave accordingly. Sometimes when difference is too large to bridge, it is best to allow room, so disagreement and tension is dispelled.
In international relations, negotiation and diplomacy is a tedious job. Cultural divides become widened whenever religions dominant opinions, ideas and convictions. Religion can be dangerous because the religious believe that their view hold "ultimate truth or value" and to disregard it, is to disregard God. The fundamentally inclined do not trust those who do not regard God as the foremost object of desire and focus. It is difficult to negotiate with those whose opinions are underwritten by "god himself".
I find that the religious are the hardest and the most difficult to broaden and engage in "public ways", as the walls are built too high. They feel that the very definition of themselves as religious is threatened by engaging the "secular" world. Trust in life, itself, is not a value to these religious "idealists". They find their comfort in the "next world", where they are promised justice.
Justice should be sought in the here and now, as that is all we really know and have. And American government seeks justice in the here and now in seeking to establish democracy abroad.
Trust is earned by someone's belief in what you do, or who you are. Trust cannot be manipulated, as trust is about relationship. Trust is about understanding and accountability. One does not listen to those who have abused, misused, or disregarded the relationship. Relationship has to be mutually edifying for it to be healthy.
Mutuality in relationship is about allowing differences, respecting rights, supporting opportunities, and giving hope. It is the social contract, where there is equal respect and regard for another's life and values.
In all relationships, there is a give and take, at least if there is healthy mutuality. Hierarchal forms of relationship can be healthy as long as there is also respect and encouragement from "both ends", not a demand to rights, but a trust that there will be "a right". Respect is foremost in regards to trust in relationship.
I find that when workers felt their rights were being abused that they sought recourse in just compensation for their work. One wonders now, what just compensation means, when those in other countries will do the work for less. Cultural living standards differ, and the American worker is disadvantaged by his own culture's standard, which has become his own.
While the worker had sought rights and won "justice", the executive has used his power to exploit and use his position and power to maintain even a higher standard of living. There seemed to be an attitude of entitlement on both ends, which built resentment and a lack of mutual respect and trust. Outsourcing jobs was a means to make more profit for the executive to "look good" and to exploit the system he had created, and benefit the stock holders, while the worker's right to work was devalued and undermined., creating an esculating environment between the worker and the boss.
I do not know the solution, but I do know that our globalized economy has exasperated the problems in corporate and private interests. Now, the government gets involved, which compounds the problem and creates a quadmire of beauraucracy that is hard to hold accountable. The citizen cannot be informed because it takes a legal mind to understand. And sometimes I think this is a convienient way to enlarge one's pockets of interests.
There is not to be a separation between a public servant's job and the private citizen's right to know, which is what the "tea parties" have sought to "voice". This is a "voice" for public good and social justice, but there are other "voices" that do not need respect. These are the attitudes of the Taliban or the antagonist. One can have convictions or opinions without oppressing another or demanding that the other agree and behave accordingly. Sometimes when difference is too large to bridge, it is best to allow room, so disagreement and tension is dispelled.
In international relations, negotiation and diplomacy is a tedious job. Cultural divides become widened whenever religions dominant opinions, ideas and convictions. Religion can be dangerous because the religious believe that their view hold "ultimate truth or value" and to disregard it, is to disregard God. The fundamentally inclined do not trust those who do not regard God as the foremost object of desire and focus. It is difficult to negotiate with those whose opinions are underwritten by "god himself".
I find that the religious are the hardest and the most difficult to broaden and engage in "public ways", as the walls are built too high. They feel that the very definition of themselves as religious is threatened by engaging the "secular" world. Trust in life, itself, is not a value to these religious "idealists". They find their comfort in the "next world", where they are promised justice.
Justice should be sought in the here and now, as that is all we really know and have. And American government seeks justice in the here and now in seeking to establish democracy abroad.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Walled Hearts and Walled Religions
Many years ago when I was in undergraduate education as an adult, I wrote a paper for my"World Religions" course. In that paper, I wrote, "is a rose by any other name, just a sweet?" That question haunted me, but has come to have meaning to what I believe nowadays.
Is a rose by any other name, just as sweet? Yes, of course, it is. The word "rose" conjures up an image to those that have been exposed to roses and sometimes it can activate the sense of smell in our memories. But, what if someone had not known the flower by the name "rose"? If they smelled a rose, called a "chamelleon", would it smell the same? Yes! Would it be the same flower? Yes, even though it was called by a different name. The same goes for true faith and one's character.
My point in all of this "rambling" is this: is the "Christ figure" just as sweet by any other name? Is the Christ figure represented by other names, such as Gandhi, Mother Theresa, uncle Joe and aunt Harriet? Does the "image" of Christ have meaning besides the person of Jesus of Nazareth (if he is a historical person)? What is the Christ image? And does the Christ image have to be manifested in the same way as Jesus of Nazareth?
The Greek Fathers understood the image of god in man. They knew about representation within real time, not the "City of God" of St. Augustine. This is where all religions point beyond themselves to a world beyond our knowing. Some agnostics may find solace in idenifying with a community of faith as they understand the purpose of myth and myth-making. Others may find more solace in understanding their connectedness to sciences' "real reality" in this world. It really doesn't matter, as both types of agnostics will "do faith" in their own realms of influence. Both types have come to terms with faith as a real "unknown" and unknowable mystery about life in its complexity.
I named my paper "Walled Hearts and Walled Religions" because this is what I think hinders the "ideal" world, life and value. Walls bring definition, but do not bring resolution or reconciliation. Walls keep others out, while protecting one's understanding of oneself within comfortable zones of definitions, behaviors, and religious rites.
Today's world is torn because of these walls. Walls that hinder and resist. Walled hearts are not open to another's views. And walled ideas are not about academic or religious freedom. We are bound by the very definitions that we make. We enslave ourselves from our small-mindedness and our fears.
The reason I changed my major from sociology to religion and philosophy was because of an ethics course. That very ethics professor just recently died. I owe him a lot. I wrote a paper for that course about moral development and moral character. He told me at graduation that it was brillant. I found it hard to believe, but the more I have learned, the more I have come to understand that character is indeed the essence of life and it doesn't really matter about religion.
Moral behavior is more about attitude first and foremost, not behavior, as behavior is culturally bound. But, whenever moral behavior is defined by a tightly defined cultural understanding, it is a means of oppression and a hinderance to moral development. Ethics would not allow such "standards" to stand, as it is more important to protect human rights, than any cultural "ideal".
Is a rose by any other name, just as sweet? Yes, of course, it is. The word "rose" conjures up an image to those that have been exposed to roses and sometimes it can activate the sense of smell in our memories. But, what if someone had not known the flower by the name "rose"? If they smelled a rose, called a "chamelleon", would it smell the same? Yes! Would it be the same flower? Yes, even though it was called by a different name. The same goes for true faith and one's character.
My point in all of this "rambling" is this: is the "Christ figure" just as sweet by any other name? Is the Christ figure represented by other names, such as Gandhi, Mother Theresa, uncle Joe and aunt Harriet? Does the "image" of Christ have meaning besides the person of Jesus of Nazareth (if he is a historical person)? What is the Christ image? And does the Christ image have to be manifested in the same way as Jesus of Nazareth?
The Greek Fathers understood the image of god in man. They knew about representation within real time, not the "City of God" of St. Augustine. This is where all religions point beyond themselves to a world beyond our knowing. Some agnostics may find solace in idenifying with a community of faith as they understand the purpose of myth and myth-making. Others may find more solace in understanding their connectedness to sciences' "real reality" in this world. It really doesn't matter, as both types of agnostics will "do faith" in their own realms of influence. Both types have come to terms with faith as a real "unknown" and unknowable mystery about life in its complexity.
I named my paper "Walled Hearts and Walled Religions" because this is what I think hinders the "ideal" world, life and value. Walls bring definition, but do not bring resolution or reconciliation. Walls keep others out, while protecting one's understanding of oneself within comfortable zones of definitions, behaviors, and religious rites.
Today's world is torn because of these walls. Walls that hinder and resist. Walled hearts are not open to another's views. And walled ideas are not about academic or religious freedom. We are bound by the very definitions that we make. We enslave ourselves from our small-mindedness and our fears.
The reason I changed my major from sociology to religion and philosophy was because of an ethics course. That very ethics professor just recently died. I owe him a lot. I wrote a paper for that course about moral development and moral character. He told me at graduation that it was brillant. I found it hard to believe, but the more I have learned, the more I have come to understand that character is indeed the essence of life and it doesn't really matter about religion.
Moral behavior is more about attitude first and foremost, not behavior, as behavior is culturally bound. But, whenever moral behavior is defined by a tightly defined cultural understanding, it is a means of oppression and a hinderance to moral development. Ethics would not allow such "standards" to stand, as it is more important to protect human rights, than any cultural "ideal".
Monday, April 27, 2009
What Are You Afraid Of?
I am sure that anyone who knows me, knows that I do not want to be controlled, as I value freedom. But, doesn't everyone value freedom? If we allow others the same freedom we would want, we do to them as we would want done to ourselves. This is fultilling the Golden Rule.
But, some are fearful that if they do not control others, then they will not "fulfill" their ultimate purpose(s). These have depended on others to carry out their "vision". While others are necessary to carry out any plan that is greater than "self-improvement", people have to co-operate, which means that they must believe in the "vision" and are committed to helping carry out the vision.
One of the signs of a great leader is inspiring others, not just initially, but when the going gets tough, to hang in there and not "bail out". But, leaders should always be open to new information or input from others, as those who are affected bythe vision should have a "voice" in their "life choices" and commitments. Good leaders are not offended or angry over criticism, as they desire to get a broader picture of the problem, so encouraging as many voices as possible is desired and really necessary. The more voices that are heard, the more likely problems will be alleviated.
Fear can be alleviated by information, as everyone grasps their "part" as they have committed to "vision". Our liberal democracy allows many avenues to fulfill one's duty, life purpose, or "vision". So, in our liberal democracy there should be no fear, but fear itself.
But, some are fearful that if they do not control others, then they will not "fulfill" their ultimate purpose(s). These have depended on others to carry out their "vision". While others are necessary to carry out any plan that is greater than "self-improvement", people have to co-operate, which means that they must believe in the "vision" and are committed to helping carry out the vision.
One of the signs of a great leader is inspiring others, not just initially, but when the going gets tough, to hang in there and not "bail out". But, leaders should always be open to new information or input from others, as those who are affected bythe vision should have a "voice" in their "life choices" and commitments. Good leaders are not offended or angry over criticism, as they desire to get a broader picture of the problem, so encouraging as many voices as possible is desired and really necessary. The more voices that are heard, the more likely problems will be alleviated.
Fear can be alleviated by information, as everyone grasps their "part" as they have committed to "vision". Our liberal democracy allows many avenues to fulfill one's duty, life purpose, or "vision". So, in our liberal democracy there should be no fear, but fear itself.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
The Individual As the Epitome of the "Ideal"
Just recently, I used the Trinity as a model of our government's form. Jesus was the legislative branch as he represented the people before the executive and made the rules., as well as fulling the 'law" (rules). The "holy spirit" was the judicial branch, as this branch interprets the law practically and specifically. The "spirit" of the individual is where they must understand how they will apply just issues to their life. But, religious leaders love to interpret the law for another and tell them how to apply it correctly. Leadership of this kind brings ultimate oppression, rather than freedom for the individual to become and to be. This is where damage occurs to the individual and the true intent of the "law".
Our country values freedom of the individual because the individual is made in God's image, not the "group'. Moral development, intellectual development, and faith development are all aspects of the whole person.
While the judicial branch is how the law is interpreted by the holy spirit to the individual in faith development. It is understood that the symbols and meaning of religion is understood in individualized ways. Certainly, context is important in an individual's understanding, and this is why the individual will understand their faith within different paradigms. Faith in the symbols, which represent something that point beyond themselves to something that is beyond the symbol and the context of the individual.
The legislative branch understands how these "rules" as interpreted by the judicial branch in faith development, will be understood in living out life in this world. This is the practical work of moral development, where "tradition" is not the ultimate, but the world at large.
But, the intellectual development is the executive branch of how the person chooses or commits to their understanding of the "rules" in their life. Intellectual development is where the life of the individual becomes a broader or wider "vision" of oneself and the world that God created. Learning is not the enemy but the friend of one that is really walking in faith. Intellectual development comes to realize that the "rights and wrongs" of "tradition" and even a certain political persuasion, all have their limitations, as reason itself is limited. The individual is not omniscient, so the individual must "play out his life" in an arena of some kind. These are personal commitments and personal values, that the indivdual finds of most importance.
So, a fully developed person has come to understand the complexity of moral issues that face social situations, and they become committed to seeking justice in those specifed areas that ultimately concern them (the disciplines). This is what life calling and leadership is about. And it is the call of the university to develop the student in a full way, so that they can have the opportunity to understand the vastness of issues, and purposes that their life could 'impact".
Our country values freedom of the individual because the individual is made in God's image, not the "group'. Moral development, intellectual development, and faith development are all aspects of the whole person.
While the judicial branch is how the law is interpreted by the holy spirit to the individual in faith development. It is understood that the symbols and meaning of religion is understood in individualized ways. Certainly, context is important in an individual's understanding, and this is why the individual will understand their faith within different paradigms. Faith in the symbols, which represent something that point beyond themselves to something that is beyond the symbol and the context of the individual.
The legislative branch understands how these "rules" as interpreted by the judicial branch in faith development, will be understood in living out life in this world. This is the practical work of moral development, where "tradition" is not the ultimate, but the world at large.
But, the intellectual development is the executive branch of how the person chooses or commits to their understanding of the "rules" in their life. Intellectual development is where the life of the individual becomes a broader or wider "vision" of oneself and the world that God created. Learning is not the enemy but the friend of one that is really walking in faith. Intellectual development comes to realize that the "rights and wrongs" of "tradition" and even a certain political persuasion, all have their limitations, as reason itself is limited. The individual is not omniscient, so the individual must "play out his life" in an arena of some kind. These are personal commitments and personal values, that the indivdual finds of most importance.
So, a fully developed person has come to understand the complexity of moral issues that face social situations, and they become committed to seeking justice in those specifed areas that ultimately concern them (the disciplines). This is what life calling and leadership is about. And it is the call of the university to develop the student in a full way, so that they can have the opportunity to understand the vastness of issues, and purposes that their life could 'impact".
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Social Responsibility and Accountability of the Free
I have been thinking about social responsibility, as this is the philosophy of this adminstration. And the "rebellion" against such a universalized view was demonstrated in the "tea parties" that were thrown across our nation. Our taxes are being used for what those in power deem is appropriate, or socially responsible. But, some in the public are disagreeing with this view. And others view resistance to what is deemed our 'duty" as selfish and self-interested. These deem their social responsibility their duty to underwrite and support, as they think that the demise of our country is grounded in social irresponsibility.
Just yesterday my husband read the tax returns of Obama and Biden that were reported on some news source. He is Dutch, so that must be taken into account :), when he told me that Biden had given .7% of his income, while Obama had given 6% of his. He was a little perturbed, as the waste in government is his experience and he believes in being frugal, especially when it comes to another person's property! But, these men had not even given the tithe, and yet, they expect the taxpayer to pay their dues to others in social responsibility.
I am not suggesting that Obama or Biden did anything wrong in their giving, but as examples, are they to set "antoher standard" for us, the "common folk"? I do not believe that there should be "mandated" charitable giving, otherwise, I would be for "taxation"! I just wonder if socialists, who WOULD mandate another's giving through taxation would continue in the benevolence:), just as they have paid all the taxes they owe!!! :).
BTW, I think that "social gospelers" have furthered the cause of socialism, and at what costs? There should not be the "mix" of religion with politics, otherwise, one does disservice to freedom of individual rights.
The problem today is how one understands the "human". Is the human "just an animal", that needs proper training? Then,the question is what is the proper training? And on whose and what terms?
Is the "human" a brain? Then, what is the mind, and how the mind understands and processes information? Or is the brain a computor that only becomes what it "should be" if the input is "right"? Then who or what determines the "right"?
Is the "human" just a social construct? Then, which culture is to determine what is "right"?
If the "human" looses memory, is the human the same person? What about those who have brain injuries and no longer have the same interests, emotions, or personality, in general? Is that person the previous person, or not?
ETC.!There are too many questions to determine anything, so our public policy flounders because the Constitution is "outdated". There needs to be a "new foundation" in the name of globalism and globalization? How are we going to bridge the gap of the great divide among the many cultures and the climates they breed?
Just yesterday my husband read the tax returns of Obama and Biden that were reported on some news source. He is Dutch, so that must be taken into account :), when he told me that Biden had given .7% of his income, while Obama had given 6% of his. He was a little perturbed, as the waste in government is his experience and he believes in being frugal, especially when it comes to another person's property! But, these men had not even given the tithe, and yet, they expect the taxpayer to pay their dues to others in social responsibility.
I am not suggesting that Obama or Biden did anything wrong in their giving, but as examples, are they to set "antoher standard" for us, the "common folk"? I do not believe that there should be "mandated" charitable giving, otherwise, I would be for "taxation"! I just wonder if socialists, who WOULD mandate another's giving through taxation would continue in the benevolence:), just as they have paid all the taxes they owe!!! :).
BTW, I think that "social gospelers" have furthered the cause of socialism, and at what costs? There should not be the "mix" of religion with politics, otherwise, one does disservice to freedom of individual rights.
The problem today is how one understands the "human". Is the human "just an animal", that needs proper training? Then,the question is what is the proper training? And on whose and what terms?
Is the "human" a brain? Then, what is the mind, and how the mind understands and processes information? Or is the brain a computor that only becomes what it "should be" if the input is "right"? Then who or what determines the "right"?
Is the "human" just a social construct? Then, which culture is to determine what is "right"?
If the "human" looses memory, is the human the same person? What about those who have brain injuries and no longer have the same interests, emotions, or personality, in general? Is that person the previous person, or not?
ETC.!There are too many questions to determine anything, so our public policy flounders because the Constitution is "outdated". There needs to be a "new foundation" in the name of globalism and globalization? How are we going to bridge the gap of the great divide among the many cultures and the climates they breed?
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Is There Nothing Supernatural About Resurrection?
The resurrection of Jesus was the 'faith" of a believing community to the "hope" produced in the human heart by the message of a "god" that was "for them", the outcast, and forsaken.
While Job's revelation of "god" was a "mystery" that was beyond a "cause and effect:" of earning "god's favor", which undermines the understanding of "god" for the religious. The early Church "created the story" of "hope of resurrection" for those who had no "hope". These were not historical, but mythological religious images that met "universal" human "emotional" need, of belonging.
The apostle Paul, a "law-abiding" and observant Pharisee, understood this message of "hope" as a uniting of "all people", humanity. There was no distinction of the Jew or the Greek (Gentile).
The historical development of Church traditon grew up around the initial "story" of "hope for all" (Jew and Gentile/Greek), which formulated the Church's apologetic arguments for the validity of the "story".
With the development of scientific discovery and the understanding of the the human person through the social sciences, the "supernatural story" seemed unbelievable. The West has thus abandoned, or is abandoning the supernaturalistic "story" for a "natural" one. The Church is seeking a way to address this need, but apologetics won't do when the whole "story" has been undermined through understanding things in a more realistic way.
Some have thought that since the Church's main "mission" was to those who had no "power" then the Church should seek to develop those outside the political and religious "power structures", just as their "moral model", Jesus, did. The social "gospel" gave rise to this "mission" to those who were so convinced.
But, while humanitarian causes were the emphasis of the social gospel, there was little distinction of the Church from America's mission or message of individual "specialness" and humanitarian aid or mission as a nation, which has led to the Church's demise as an important influence in the culture, as a whole.
The Church developed two responses. One responded by accomodating to American culture (nominalism) and the Church became indistinct from any other social organization that sought similar goals, or had similar values.
The other response tried to define the Church in more distinctive ways from the nation's interest. The separation of the sacred and secular began in our culture, with the Puritans, which has led to a super- spiritualizing the text, traditon and community. The Church in distinguishing oneself in opposition to the "other" (the nation's interest) became undermining to the Church's believability, as it left the "real world" for a "transcendental one".
I find that false distinctions are only means of meeting narcisstic needs of "difference", instead of uniting with what we can and impacting society at large. Since there is no distinction of the sacred and secular, the Church has "problems" with identifying itself apart from "natural" human understandings. This is why the Church has almost died in the West and why Newsweek said that America had died as a Christian nation.
Just as there was really no difference between the Jew and the Greek, there is no difference between the sacred and secular in knowledge or human truth. All truth is God's. Truth is not a way of interpretation, as that would be dependent on humans, but truth is a matter of discovery, which is a matter of science, which is a part of the 'real world".
While Job's revelation of "god" was a "mystery" that was beyond a "cause and effect:" of earning "god's favor", which undermines the understanding of "god" for the religious. The early Church "created the story" of "hope of resurrection" for those who had no "hope". These were not historical, but mythological religious images that met "universal" human "emotional" need, of belonging.
The apostle Paul, a "law-abiding" and observant Pharisee, understood this message of "hope" as a uniting of "all people", humanity. There was no distinction of the Jew or the Greek (Gentile).
The historical development of Church traditon grew up around the initial "story" of "hope for all" (Jew and Gentile/Greek), which formulated the Church's apologetic arguments for the validity of the "story".
With the development of scientific discovery and the understanding of the the human person through the social sciences, the "supernatural story" seemed unbelievable. The West has thus abandoned, or is abandoning the supernaturalistic "story" for a "natural" one. The Church is seeking a way to address this need, but apologetics won't do when the whole "story" has been undermined through understanding things in a more realistic way.
Some have thought that since the Church's main "mission" was to those who had no "power" then the Church should seek to develop those outside the political and religious "power structures", just as their "moral model", Jesus, did. The social "gospel" gave rise to this "mission" to those who were so convinced.
But, while humanitarian causes were the emphasis of the social gospel, there was little distinction of the Church from America's mission or message of individual "specialness" and humanitarian aid or mission as a nation, which has led to the Church's demise as an important influence in the culture, as a whole.
The Church developed two responses. One responded by accomodating to American culture (nominalism) and the Church became indistinct from any other social organization that sought similar goals, or had similar values.
The other response tried to define the Church in more distinctive ways from the nation's interest. The separation of the sacred and secular began in our culture, with the Puritans, which has led to a super- spiritualizing the text, traditon and community. The Church in distinguishing oneself in opposition to the "other" (the nation's interest) became undermining to the Church's believability, as it left the "real world" for a "transcendental one".
I find that false distinctions are only means of meeting narcisstic needs of "difference", instead of uniting with what we can and impacting society at large. Since there is no distinction of the sacred and secular, the Church has "problems" with identifying itself apart from "natural" human understandings. This is why the Church has almost died in the West and why Newsweek said that America had died as a Christian nation.
Just as there was really no difference between the Jew and the Greek, there is no difference between the sacred and secular in knowledge or human truth. All truth is God's. Truth is not a way of interpretation, as that would be dependent on humans, but truth is a matter of discovery, which is a matter of science, which is a part of the 'real world".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
