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".
Showing posts with label convictions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label convictions. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Saturday, February 13, 2010
The Problem With "Holiness"
"Holiness" has been useful for the religious, because of their need for identification "apart from the rest of the world". Therefore, the sects continue to separate from what is "unholy" to define and refine "who they are".
The problem with "holiness" is that it distinguishes one thing from another based on some "standardization". These standards are what religion is about. Standards of behavior in how to approach God, do one's duty, dress, perform, experience, and even think, etc. Religion is a false or pretentious "form" of judgement. These judgments are "justified" by texts, traditions, and "community norms".
What is really at stake is the individual's freedom to become apart from such religious "forms". Religion imposes itself on the natural world without allowing the individual freedom to question, and come to terms with their own "way of being in the world". Democracies allow such freedom. Apart from a free society there is no individuality.
Today's world is wrought with religious zeal that finds its identity in such "faith" apart from reason. And many find themselves under domination because of false convictions that are not really theirs. This imposition is really about co-dependence and "belonging", not healthy human flourishing and development. And co-dependence is about an under-developed ego.
At least that is my "unprofessional" assessment.
The problem with "holiness" is that it distinguishes one thing from another based on some "standardization". These standards are what religion is about. Standards of behavior in how to approach God, do one's duty, dress, perform, experience, and even think, etc. Religion is a false or pretentious "form" of judgement. These judgments are "justified" by texts, traditions, and "community norms".
What is really at stake is the individual's freedom to become apart from such religious "forms". Religion imposes itself on the natural world without allowing the individual freedom to question, and come to terms with their own "way of being in the world". Democracies allow such freedom. Apart from a free society there is no individuality.
Today's world is wrought with religious zeal that finds its identity in such "faith" apart from reason. And many find themselves under domination because of false convictions that are not really theirs. This imposition is really about co-dependence and "belonging", not healthy human flourishing and development. And co-dependence is about an under-developed ego.
At least that is my "unprofessional" assessment.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Reasons Have to Be Enough
I have a mixture of thoughts "mixing around" in my head, that don't really "come together" coherently. So, this post may sound a little more rambling than the average. :)
Relationships are always difficult at some time and/or in some way. These are the "things life is made of", these fragile, fulfilling, exasperating, perplexing, confusing, exhilerating, fascinating, encouraging, faithful reliationships.
But, the most challenging are those in which you are between two people(s) whom you love (personal) or desire to see a resolution (justice). You understand both sides, and both people and can't take sides without denying something that is above rational. You can agree with one, but can't betray the other. So, you try to resolve the dilemma by defending the one to the other. Sometimes this works, sometimes you alienate both parties. What do you do?
Sometimes the differences are due to temperament and different values and focus in life. But, many times, it is also experience that determines how one views the things that are straining relationships. There is no way that you can help someone who has no experience to draw from to understand the other's perspective.
This is the world of diplomats where two cultures collide and there is no reason where one is "right and the other wrong". In one sense, this is true. But, in the absolute sense, what is "right" is what has been resolved long before the conflict in the laws that govern nations, and people. These laws seek to underwrite justice and protect lives from undue interference. And this is the nature of "human rights".
But, is there something more important than human rights? If one dissolves all difference to the 'common" does that dissolve something that is unspeakably significant? Does one loose A human being" in the midst of "mass humanity", or "The human being". I think this is so.
Each nation has interests that must be appropriately negotiated and represented in world politics. This is where our nation's interest, the military, and international law, foreign policy and the wider diplomatic community are invested.
Today, I heard that Obama had not agreed to what some human rights activists were advocating. These activists were wanting Gitmo's "discussion" on human rights abuses to apply to prisoners the military are holding in Afghanstan. Prisoners of war are those who are challenging our right as a nation to exist. Although these prisoners of war are human beings, there is somethig more important the unique "kind' of human being. One cannot make distinctions and judgment, evaluations of any kind, if there is no way to distinctify. And distinguishing is of major importance when it comes to national interests and the protection of the majority.
So, whatever the liberal, leftist propaganda may say; we are all prejuidiced, otherwise we can have no convictions /judgments to strategize and that applies to the human rights advocate.
Reasons Have to Be Enough.
Relationships are always difficult at some time and/or in some way. These are the "things life is made of", these fragile, fulfilling, exasperating, perplexing, confusing, exhilerating, fascinating, encouraging, faithful reliationships.
But, the most challenging are those in which you are between two people(s) whom you love (personal) or desire to see a resolution (justice). You understand both sides, and both people and can't take sides without denying something that is above rational. You can agree with one, but can't betray the other. So, you try to resolve the dilemma by defending the one to the other. Sometimes this works, sometimes you alienate both parties. What do you do?
Sometimes the differences are due to temperament and different values and focus in life. But, many times, it is also experience that determines how one views the things that are straining relationships. There is no way that you can help someone who has no experience to draw from to understand the other's perspective.
This is the world of diplomats where two cultures collide and there is no reason where one is "right and the other wrong". In one sense, this is true. But, in the absolute sense, what is "right" is what has been resolved long before the conflict in the laws that govern nations, and people. These laws seek to underwrite justice and protect lives from undue interference. And this is the nature of "human rights".
But, is there something more important than human rights? If one dissolves all difference to the 'common" does that dissolve something that is unspeakably significant? Does one loose A human being" in the midst of "mass humanity", or "The human being". I think this is so.
Each nation has interests that must be appropriately negotiated and represented in world politics. This is where our nation's interest, the military, and international law, foreign policy and the wider diplomatic community are invested.
Today, I heard that Obama had not agreed to what some human rights activists were advocating. These activists were wanting Gitmo's "discussion" on human rights abuses to apply to prisoners the military are holding in Afghanstan. Prisoners of war are those who are challenging our right as a nation to exist. Although these prisoners of war are human beings, there is somethig more important the unique "kind' of human being. One cannot make distinctions and judgment, evaluations of any kind, if there is no way to distinctify. And distinguishing is of major importance when it comes to national interests and the protection of the majority.
So, whatever the liberal, leftist propaganda may say; we are all prejuidiced, otherwise we can have no convictions /judgments to strategize and that applies to the human rights advocate.
Reasons Have to Be Enough.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
The PROBLEM With Culture
Culture is context. Context defines who we are, as human beings. Culture determines values, as they impact how one assesses "right and wrong". In the West, we depend on reason and use science to bring understanding. American culture affirms individuals and their 'reason". This is a universal as it allows diverse views within a unified nation. Or are we unified?
Many are concerned as our country is divided by the political realm. Our strengh could become our weakness if we do not continue to be open to "reason". Whether one values Republican or Deomocratic values, as it concerns social issues, we must learn to listen and THINK! Otherwise, we are headed to divide our nation and defeat progress in legislation, and our culture's impact on other needs she has.
I find that the ultimate value of our First Amendment right to freely allow information to flow, so that we can be better informed and make rational decisions, and become more "whole individual's as it concerns our own personal development. We have the tools in America to "become" because of our freedoms. Let us use them and defend them.
If Culture becomes an icon, we are headed for totaltarianism of some kind. Government cannot enforce itself upon human beings without there being oppressive. This is why we allow certain freedoms. Religious tradtions sometimes feels threatened by progressiveness, as tradition's understanding of itself is to remain "true" or "loyal" to what has been understood to be of value. And "god" is the ultimate value of religion. "God" in the modern West is being re-defined according to science's "evolution" and understanding of the physical world. This is troubling to some, as it undermines the personal, as understood in conservative or evangelical terms. I think the personal should be undermined, as otherwise, it becomes the "god of one's idolatry". God cannot be understood in complete form, so this should comfort those who fear science's challenge to religion's value and loyalty to "god".
America is the universal standard for an "ideal" government, as the ideal is connected to the real world and it allows the personal to "exist" in the indivdiual's values, and convictions. America affirms the universals of freedom and justice for all, because of its affirmation of all voices in the public square.
Many are concerned as our country is divided by the political realm. Our strengh could become our weakness if we do not continue to be open to "reason". Whether one values Republican or Deomocratic values, as it concerns social issues, we must learn to listen and THINK! Otherwise, we are headed to divide our nation and defeat progress in legislation, and our culture's impact on other needs she has.
I find that the ultimate value of our First Amendment right to freely allow information to flow, so that we can be better informed and make rational decisions, and become more "whole individual's as it concerns our own personal development. We have the tools in America to "become" because of our freedoms. Let us use them and defend them.
If Culture becomes an icon, we are headed for totaltarianism of some kind. Government cannot enforce itself upon human beings without there being oppressive. This is why we allow certain freedoms. Religious tradtions sometimes feels threatened by progressiveness, as tradition's understanding of itself is to remain "true" or "loyal" to what has been understood to be of value. And "god" is the ultimate value of religion. "God" in the modern West is being re-defined according to science's "evolution" and understanding of the physical world. This is troubling to some, as it undermines the personal, as understood in conservative or evangelical terms. I think the personal should be undermined, as otherwise, it becomes the "god of one's idolatry". God cannot be understood in complete form, so this should comfort those who fear science's challenge to religion's value and loyalty to "god".
America is the universal standard for an "ideal" government, as the ideal is connected to the real world and it allows the personal to "exist" in the indivdiual's values, and convictions. America affirms the universals of freedom and justice for all, because of its affirmation of all voices in the public square.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
In Answer to My Question....
This morning's entry was entitled "Is There Historical Christianity". In postmodernity, there has been an attempt to "actualize" Jesus' life, as radicalism of the text does. This is called "incarnation" in theological terms. It is bringing faith into action. This concern in scholarly and piestic circles has been the "disconnect" between faith and "works". As traditional Reformed formulas of understanding are based on faith "alone", disconnecting faith from 'real life", as piestic faith likes to "see" faith in action. Other believers have bought the "social gospel" as there is not holiness without social holiness in John Wesley's understanding. And still others think that the public and private domains need to connect because of the 'moral degeneracy that has affected Western culture.
The problem with historicizing the text into another's life, or legislating a narrow viewpoint is that it over-rides the value of that specific life for a 'worldview" or a specific moral example, which entails specific convictions and values. These cannot be universalized without doing injustice to another human life. So, where is faith and historicity in post-modernity?
Wherever faith resides it will be known by the life that is led. The problem is' another's life may differ from yours, because they are different people, with a different perspective, and different values. Such is cultural diversity. And faith is not about cultural distinctives, as faith accomodates to the culture itself. But, some suggest that faith should transform culture, as this is what faith is called to do and is what the "social gospel" is about.
That being said, Americans most of all need to lighten up on issues that drive some to ideological extremes. Moderation is a virtue. But, some think moderation is compromise, luke-warmness, and half-heartedness. But, I think that moderation shows respect and humility to reason, faith and others, as it values first and foremost freedom of the individual to have difference, and freedom of the individual before God.
The problem with historicizing the text into another's life, or legislating a narrow viewpoint is that it over-rides the value of that specific life for a 'worldview" or a specific moral example, which entails specific convictions and values. These cannot be universalized without doing injustice to another human life. So, where is faith and historicity in post-modernity?
Wherever faith resides it will be known by the life that is led. The problem is' another's life may differ from yours, because they are different people, with a different perspective, and different values. Such is cultural diversity. And faith is not about cultural distinctives, as faith accomodates to the culture itself. But, some suggest that faith should transform culture, as this is what faith is called to do and is what the "social gospel" is about.
That being said, Americans most of all need to lighten up on issues that drive some to ideological extremes. Moderation is a virtue. But, some think moderation is compromise, luke-warmness, and half-heartedness. But, I think that moderation shows respect and humility to reason, faith and others, as it values first and foremost freedom of the individual to have difference, and freedom of the individual before God.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
The Public, The Private, and The Moral or Ethical Questions
Some people of faith believe that there should be a universal way to understand faith. These people like regulation, structure and measurements of faithfulness, and growth, while others like to define faith in purely doctrinal, or theological ways. There is nothing wrong in and of itself for a group to define its faith in a particular way, but it becomes problematic for these "faithful" to impose their views on others, impinging on another's life. Another's life is thiers to steward in the way they deem fit and for their own personal values and commitments, which may or may not fall "in line" with the afore-mentioned ways of understanding faith.
All Christians believe that life is sacred and the conservative defend to the death the "right to life" of the unborn, while excusing thier disregard to another's "right to life", as far as personal conviction or commitment. But, this is just the discussion of the private and public domains.
Some claim that one's faith is played out in life, as there is no private faith. Faith is always lived. This is true, but how these commitments of value are understood and lived are different from one person of faith to another. In a democracy, we must allow that freedom of conscience, otherwise, we are doomed to live under political or religious oppression...
For instance, China and Russia allow a "state approved" religion, while the Taliban only allow a "religiously approved" way of life. Both are unbalanced ways of coming to terms with faith. One views faith as completely personal and private, while the other views it as completely regulated. Both oppress in different ways. We must not allow this to happen in our country.
Many argue that separation of Church and State does nothing other than disadvantage religion by not allowing a "voice" to the religious, while others claim that their political freedom is disadvantaged by the imposition of that "voice". Where is the balance? What is the solution?
If faith is a playing out of one's commitment in life through action, then there is no reason to believe that whatever one does is a matter of faith. Faith should not be understood in a compartmentalized way, but at the same time, we should not demand a certain response to "prove" faith or faithfulness. Faith is about one's understanding of life and how this understanding comes to be understood.
Religious people have sacred texts that transcibe how life should be lived, according to the interpetive community. This is a sectarian view of faith and is not a universal perspective. Those who base their life on reason do not transcribe to a religious tradition necessarily, but do want reasons for their faith about one or another issue. This is the basis of our democracy and is what our public discourse, where our values are heard in the public square and defended with reasonable reasons. The political realm is where the ideological frames win or loose their power over policy. And this is the freedom of conscience that the Framer's of our Constitution allowed.
All Christians believe that life is sacred and the conservative defend to the death the "right to life" of the unborn, while excusing thier disregard to another's "right to life", as far as personal conviction or commitment. But, this is just the discussion of the private and public domains.
Some claim that one's faith is played out in life, as there is no private faith. Faith is always lived. This is true, but how these commitments of value are understood and lived are different from one person of faith to another. In a democracy, we must allow that freedom of conscience, otherwise, we are doomed to live under political or religious oppression...
For instance, China and Russia allow a "state approved" religion, while the Taliban only allow a "religiously approved" way of life. Both are unbalanced ways of coming to terms with faith. One views faith as completely personal and private, while the other views it as completely regulated. Both oppress in different ways. We must not allow this to happen in our country.
Many argue that separation of Church and State does nothing other than disadvantage religion by not allowing a "voice" to the religious, while others claim that their political freedom is disadvantaged by the imposition of that "voice". Where is the balance? What is the solution?
If faith is a playing out of one's commitment in life through action, then there is no reason to believe that whatever one does is a matter of faith. Faith should not be understood in a compartmentalized way, but at the same time, we should not demand a certain response to "prove" faith or faithfulness. Faith is about one's understanding of life and how this understanding comes to be understood.
Religious people have sacred texts that transcibe how life should be lived, according to the interpetive community. This is a sectarian view of faith and is not a universal perspective. Those who base their life on reason do not transcribe to a religious tradition necessarily, but do want reasons for their faith about one or another issue. This is the basis of our democracy and is what our public discourse, where our values are heard in the public square and defended with reasonable reasons. The political realm is where the ideological frames win or loose their power over policy. And this is the freedom of conscience that the Framer's of our Constitution allowed.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Senator Judd Gregg Appears Tonight on TV
Senator Judd Gregg was on TV tonight. He has turned down Obama for the Secretary of Commerce. He said he turned down the position after he considered his commitment to fisical conservatism. He did not think that this administration was on the "same page" and he thought that he would not have much to offer because of these differences. Hurray for him, for having the integrity to stick by his convictions and not compromise his beliefs! And then, to state them so emphatically on TV.
The U.S. debt is to reach 1.7 trillion dollars, which will hinder our next generation and generations to come. I think that Sen. Gregg was acting responsibly because he remained true to his values and personal commitments. More politicians should do the same.
I wonder how the 'greater good" people would have seen or argued against his individual commitment to his own values at the expense of the adminstration's. Some in blogosphere have been writing against individualism and independence. I find that this thinking is very misguided, as it leads to brainlessness. Independence and individualism doesn't have to mean rebellion or revolution, but some suppose that those who resist, rather than submit are obviously rebellious. Perhaps so.
I am not arguing against social structures or our needs for them, as all of us need context, but I am arguing against depending on them to the extent of giving up one's own values or identity. Ethics is an evaluation of values. And those who argue against the individual are suggesting that "suspending the ethical" is what is for the "best" or the "greater good". How can this be?
These bloggers used Abraham as the suggested "model" of right behavior. These bloggers suggest that faith is "leaping against reason", in sacrificing Issac. Not only is this not reasonable, but it is presumptuous.
The sacrifice of Issac is understood theologically as symbolic representation of the redemption of Jesus. And it is suggested by some that it is a "model" to "test" for "absolute surrender", as Issac was the Promise of god to Abraham, and yet, Abrahma was willing the sacrifice his promised son to prove his obedience at all costs. This was a test for idolatry of heart, at least this is the theologian's interpretation.
The aforementioned theological interpretation is not written in the text, but is interpreted by the NT theologizing. It is not the ethical that God demands, but the outrageously "abnormal". This is considered true spirituality, going against reason, jumping in the dark, taking a leap of faith, etc.
This is not a realistic view of life. Take Senator Gregg, for instance, if he suspended his rational judgment and took a leap of faith, then he would have taken the position Obama offered him, irregardless of Obama's ideological differences. He would have understood that to "walk by faith" would be the "costs" of setting aside his fisical convictions, as these are reasoned, and in opposition to "faith" in taking a risk on his "leader's views". This is the major implication of the Abrahamic story, that the "Leader" is to be trusted. The leader spiritually is Jesus, but in reality, the leader is whoever is in power in the real world.
I would much rather do my business with people who are rational and reasonable, that do not ask for blind allegiance because, then you can understand and converse over the rationale of their propositions. People who do business based on "leaps of faith" have no rationale, as it is pure speculation and risk. And the Christian risk-taker calls it "God's will", even though there is no speicific plan. I think this is downright prsumptuous. Of course, this is my personal conviction....
The U.S. debt is to reach 1.7 trillion dollars, which will hinder our next generation and generations to come. I think that Sen. Gregg was acting responsibly because he remained true to his values and personal commitments. More politicians should do the same.
I wonder how the 'greater good" people would have seen or argued against his individual commitment to his own values at the expense of the adminstration's. Some in blogosphere have been writing against individualism and independence. I find that this thinking is very misguided, as it leads to brainlessness. Independence and individualism doesn't have to mean rebellion or revolution, but some suppose that those who resist, rather than submit are obviously rebellious. Perhaps so.
I am not arguing against social structures or our needs for them, as all of us need context, but I am arguing against depending on them to the extent of giving up one's own values or identity. Ethics is an evaluation of values. And those who argue against the individual are suggesting that "suspending the ethical" is what is for the "best" or the "greater good". How can this be?
These bloggers used Abraham as the suggested "model" of right behavior. These bloggers suggest that faith is "leaping against reason", in sacrificing Issac. Not only is this not reasonable, but it is presumptuous.
The sacrifice of Issac is understood theologically as symbolic representation of the redemption of Jesus. And it is suggested by some that it is a "model" to "test" for "absolute surrender", as Issac was the Promise of god to Abraham, and yet, Abrahma was willing the sacrifice his promised son to prove his obedience at all costs. This was a test for idolatry of heart, at least this is the theologian's interpretation.
The aforementioned theological interpretation is not written in the text, but is interpreted by the NT theologizing. It is not the ethical that God demands, but the outrageously "abnormal". This is considered true spirituality, going against reason, jumping in the dark, taking a leap of faith, etc.
This is not a realistic view of life. Take Senator Gregg, for instance, if he suspended his rational judgment and took a leap of faith, then he would have taken the position Obama offered him, irregardless of Obama's ideological differences. He would have understood that to "walk by faith" would be the "costs" of setting aside his fisical convictions, as these are reasoned, and in opposition to "faith" in taking a risk on his "leader's views". This is the major implication of the Abrahamic story, that the "Leader" is to be trusted. The leader spiritually is Jesus, but in reality, the leader is whoever is in power in the real world.
I would much rather do my business with people who are rational and reasonable, that do not ask for blind allegiance because, then you can understand and converse over the rationale of their propositions. People who do business based on "leaps of faith" have no rationale, as it is pure speculation and risk. And the Christian risk-taker calls it "God's will", even though there is no speicific plan. I think this is downright prsumptuous. Of course, this is my personal conviction....
Sunday, February 15, 2009
A Play for the 'Greater Good'.
Last night's play had another aspect of meaning for me, as well as religious freedom. It also had the significance of academic and political freedom!
I commend the President, the Provost, and any others involved in allowing "the show to go on", because, I know that the culture of the university is a conservative one. The reason I think that this was a step in the right direction, is because our very nation's values are being threatened by religious zealots, that find tolerance abominable. I think that the Provost's introduction of the play and his emphasis of the university's distinctives were commendable. I also thought that the program giving reasoned reasons for certain aspects of the play that might prove offensive was gracious.
Our Bill of Rights does protect freedom of expression, whether it be in journalism, or religious conviction. Without freedom to express "another opinion" our political culture is endangered, because it becomes propagandized for a particular view or opinion. Education cannot happen in cultures that dominate, control or prohibit these freedoms of expression, because critical thinking skills are not needed where there is no "difference".
Christians should be people that believe that God is bigger than any type of expression. That does not mean that Christians condone any type of expression. The political realm can only be open and free when there is religious tolerance. And religious tolerance says that Congress shall make no legislation concerning religion or its free expression.
Grace means that we grant others the right to differ in opinion, values and commitments, because we understand that some things are just not "black and white" issues. Paul commended in the Scriptures that each man should be fully assured in his own mind. And Jesus said that we should not judge another's man's servant, because to his own master his stands or falls.
All of life is gifted and given. The play itself, as well as the university's tolerance of it was affirming of the grace that is prevenient. And I think is what Wesley would have approved.
I commend the President, the Provost, and any others involved in allowing "the show to go on", because, I know that the culture of the university is a conservative one. The reason I think that this was a step in the right direction, is because our very nation's values are being threatened by religious zealots, that find tolerance abominable. I think that the Provost's introduction of the play and his emphasis of the university's distinctives were commendable. I also thought that the program giving reasoned reasons for certain aspects of the play that might prove offensive was gracious.
Our Bill of Rights does protect freedom of expression, whether it be in journalism, or religious conviction. Without freedom to express "another opinion" our political culture is endangered, because it becomes propagandized for a particular view or opinion. Education cannot happen in cultures that dominate, control or prohibit these freedoms of expression, because critical thinking skills are not needed where there is no "difference".
Christians should be people that believe that God is bigger than any type of expression. That does not mean that Christians condone any type of expression. The political realm can only be open and free when there is religious tolerance. And religious tolerance says that Congress shall make no legislation concerning religion or its free expression.
Grace means that we grant others the right to differ in opinion, values and commitments, because we understand that some things are just not "black and white" issues. Paul commended in the Scriptures that each man should be fully assured in his own mind. And Jesus said that we should not judge another's man's servant, because to his own master his stands or falls.
All of life is gifted and given. The play itself, as well as the university's tolerance of it was affirming of the grace that is prevenient. And I think is what Wesley would have approved.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Tired of the Littleness
Little minds, which think they know everything, are those whose minds are closed to anything other than what they think. These are not only the uneducated, but the educated that are determined to prove their point. And their point is the only point they see. They cannot get over their own view, their own opinion or their own position.
Little hearts are not open to others in expressing their opinion, nor are they open to new ideas. Their hearts are heardened by their heads, because their truth has blinded their eyes to see anything other than their own frame of reference. Little hearts don't seek understanding, or wisdom, but only want to give out advice and lead. They have hearts of stone that cannot be written upon because they have closed minds, which has hindered the oil from keeping their heart from hardening.
It is not in having strong opinions, or in being convinced or having strong convictions, or even in expressing an opinion, even expressing with intensity, but in allowing others to have a differenc of opinion, another way of seeing and doing and being in the world that is important. Otherwise, there only needs to be one person in the world and it is the person whose mind is closed and heart is hardened....
Little hearts are not open to others in expressing their opinion, nor are they open to new ideas. Their hearts are heardened by their heads, because their truth has blinded their eyes to see anything other than their own frame of reference. Little hearts don't seek understanding, or wisdom, but only want to give out advice and lead. They have hearts of stone that cannot be written upon because they have closed minds, which has hindered the oil from keeping their heart from hardening.
It is not in having strong opinions, or in being convinced or having strong convictions, or even in expressing an opinion, even expressing with intensity, but in allowing others to have a differenc of opinion, another way of seeing and doing and being in the world that is important. Otherwise, there only needs to be one person in the world and it is the person whose mind is closed and heart is hardened....
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Politics, Fairness, and Representation
Politics is the domain of campaigning for power. Politics disregards the other side's interest as they are out to win. The Campaign and the partisanship is what we have come to expect in any political campaign. But, what are the results in our democratic form of government?
Politicians should be people of character, who represent others fairly, as ours is a representative government. Representation is necessary for the free to remain free, as each group has a right to exist and to be free in their understanding and practice of their particular life choices.
Fairness was brought home to me in answering a person's question on my blog site. He was questioning an application of my "ideals". As I answered him I used several terms that he furthur wanted information about where I stood. In responding more speicifically and conclusively, I realized and recgnized certain priorities for the politician that is important.
The politician must answer questions, with his opinion and then give reasons why he finds this position most reasonable. While his position can be stated forthrightly, it only furthers his cause to be informed of the other side, and/or how another application that would "speak" to the particular person would enlighten and enlarge the questioner, while underlining why he believes what he does.
I really enjoy the debate, I guess, as I answer the question, considering the sides and weighing my own convictions, again. I have changed my opinion about some things in my lifetime, as we all have.
So, in thinking about politics tonight, I became convinced that the politician should be a person of conviction, while being educated, open-minded, and fair. I wish I could say that all politicians behaved this way, but that is why we have the campaign and free elections...as the voters are the ones who hold the reigns of power first.
Politicians should be people of character, who represent others fairly, as ours is a representative government. Representation is necessary for the free to remain free, as each group has a right to exist and to be free in their understanding and practice of their particular life choices.
Fairness was brought home to me in answering a person's question on my blog site. He was questioning an application of my "ideals". As I answered him I used several terms that he furthur wanted information about where I stood. In responding more speicifically and conclusively, I realized and recgnized certain priorities for the politician that is important.
The politician must answer questions, with his opinion and then give reasons why he finds this position most reasonable. While his position can be stated forthrightly, it only furthers his cause to be informed of the other side, and/or how another application that would "speak" to the particular person would enlighten and enlarge the questioner, while underlining why he believes what he does.
I really enjoy the debate, I guess, as I answer the question, considering the sides and weighing my own convictions, again. I have changed my opinion about some things in my lifetime, as we all have.
So, in thinking about politics tonight, I became convinced that the politician should be a person of conviction, while being educated, open-minded, and fair. I wish I could say that all politicians behaved this way, but that is why we have the campaign and free elections...as the voters are the ones who hold the reigns of power first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
