What has "happened" to the "Gospel" and "The Church" in Modern society? How do we understand life, and time and text and tradition?
Much has transpired over time that makes it hard to hold to "biblical faith" or "biblical Christianity". Christians believe that history is "God"'s time/story. Westerners think in linear terms concerning their faith. There is a beginning and an end. God created the heavens and the earth and Christ is to come again. Faith is understood within the text as a developing story, God's story in Christ. Salvation was understood as "accepting" the story, and identifying with a Christian community. How faith communities understand themselves is the real issue after the Protestant Reformation.
Faith, as Protestants undestand it, is what liberty of conscience is to our Founders. Therefore, the Protestant Principle "works to fragment "faith" into diverse communities. The Roman Catholic Tradition understands itself as a political community, because it determines what each person's duty is to remain within it "graces". Such a political stance might grant crimes and punishments against the Church, but not necessarily against the nation-state, as these are seen as "spiritual" offenses. Since the West values a linear view of history, change is assumed.As America is primarily understood as a Protestant nation, how did America come to understand "Faith"?
Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
When Liberty Should Be Limited
Liberty is limited by law in free societies, as law defines and determines what is illegal or criminal behavior. But, what "Should" be limited?
Government should be limited according to our Founding Fathers. Governments intrude upon individual liberties. Therefore, governments should limit by law, what should be protected. Government should protect indivdiual values to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Life is to be protected. Property is to be protected. And privacy is to be protected. Whenever these protections are ignored or devalued, then we devalue individuality.
Murder, theft, and privacy are crimes against individuality. The individual has a right to own his own life in Western society. And this is why so many seek to come to our shores. We value opportunity for the individual.
Government should be limited according to our Founding Fathers. Governments intrude upon individual liberties. Therefore, governments should limit by law, what should be protected. Government should protect indivdiual values to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Life is to be protected. Property is to be protected. And privacy is to be protected. Whenever these protections are ignored or devalued, then we devalue individuality.
Murder, theft, and privacy are crimes against individuality. The individual has a right to own his own life in Western society. And this is why so many seek to come to our shores. We value opportunity for the individual.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
My Heart Goes Out...
My heart goes out to those who lost loved ones in the most recent attack on those who serve our country.
I can only imagine in my worst nightmare having a loved one come home from a dangerous location, to have them shot within our" protected boundaries". These men and women had shown bravery and self-sacrifice for our nation's defense. And these also represented their loved ones hearts and their giving to our country.
Why would someone do this?
It is supposed that there was a "conflict of interest" for the one that committed the crime. He had not wanted to be deployed and was against war. Why did he join the military, then? Although we do not seek out a war, the military are called to defned our nation, if that is necessary. Was he under the impression that he could be in the military and not be involved with war, at all? It all seems strange to me.
How did he have access to the weaponry? And was the attack "planned" or premeditated? It would seem it would have to be with the wearponry he had.
Many questions, but only one known answer if for sure. Questions about the why, when, where and how, but only one answer for our military; duty, service, and country.
I can only imagine in my worst nightmare having a loved one come home from a dangerous location, to have them shot within our" protected boundaries". These men and women had shown bravery and self-sacrifice for our nation's defense. And these also represented their loved ones hearts and their giving to our country.
Why would someone do this?
It is supposed that there was a "conflict of interest" for the one that committed the crime. He had not wanted to be deployed and was against war. Why did he join the military, then? Although we do not seek out a war, the military are called to defned our nation, if that is necessary. Was he under the impression that he could be in the military and not be involved with war, at all? It all seems strange to me.
How did he have access to the weaponry? And was the attack "planned" or premeditated? It would seem it would have to be with the wearponry he had.
Many questions, but only one known answer if for sure. Questions about the why, when, where and how, but only one answer for our military; duty, service, and country.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Kindergarten Teaches You All You Need to Know...
I heard a good way to distinguish a liberal and a conservative today on the radio.
A conservative is one who believes in the Constitution and believes that the Bill of Rights limits government from intruding upon individual liberty. The Bill of Rights is descriptive.
The liberal, on the other hand, believes that although the Constitution limits government's intrusion upon individuals, it does not explain what the role of government should be. The "should" is the key. "Should" is a judgment of value, a moral imperative. And the judgment is prescriptive.
Should there be an "ought" or a "should"? And by what measure do we assess the prescription? If someone legislates that we all are to work 3/4ths of the year to provide for government's "necessities", then is this what the "should" should be? Or has government over-reached its bounds? Is the private sector to be responsible for the "moral"? If so, then how is this postulated? By non-profits? Are Americans still "rightful owners" of private property, or does government intrude upon that "right"?
Morals are taught in kindergarten. There, children learn to share, not take another's toy and to respect others. Government should not be teaching 'kindergarten", but unfortunately, parents and teachers are not teaching what they "should" and it ends up being a matter for government to "take care of" in addressing criminal behavior. Then, we all pay for what others have not taken care of.
Society will not be able to function if parents and teachers are not able to help undergird and undertake "training" children to understand that it is not right to take another's toy, or that it is inappropriate to talk while the teacher is talking. Respect is a necessary value for one to learn in kindergarten.
Conservatives believe in individual liberties, but these liberties are not absolute, when it comes to required behavior. Society demands attention to other's rights, as well as one's own. The required behavior are written in the laws that define our society. But, conservatives limit the other's rights, when it intrudes upon their own. This is responsible behavior and it demands responsible and respectful behavior from others.
The liberal must love when others intrude upon their rights, because it means that they are "needed" and that they have a "function" in society. The liberal needs to be needed. He is the eternal co-dependent. The liberal views the conservative as selfish and narcisstic, as he believes that the "moral imperative" is an "absolute". And the liberal's moral absolute intrudes upon the conservative's liberty bias.
The conservative is not necessarily driven by "evil" in protecting his values of liberty and conscience. The conservative just values his own independence too much to allow government to "tell" him in a prescriptive way "who, what, when and how".
(Perhaps, I have over-stated the liberal's position, as I consider myself a conservative. But, it seems to me an injustice and a moral failure to "demand responsibility from one side and allow irresponsibility on the other. That is my take, at least.)
A conservative is one who believes in the Constitution and believes that the Bill of Rights limits government from intruding upon individual liberty. The Bill of Rights is descriptive.
The liberal, on the other hand, believes that although the Constitution limits government's intrusion upon individuals, it does not explain what the role of government should be. The "should" is the key. "Should" is a judgment of value, a moral imperative. And the judgment is prescriptive.
Should there be an "ought" or a "should"? And by what measure do we assess the prescription? If someone legislates that we all are to work 3/4ths of the year to provide for government's "necessities", then is this what the "should" should be? Or has government over-reached its bounds? Is the private sector to be responsible for the "moral"? If so, then how is this postulated? By non-profits? Are Americans still "rightful owners" of private property, or does government intrude upon that "right"?
Morals are taught in kindergarten. There, children learn to share, not take another's toy and to respect others. Government should not be teaching 'kindergarten", but unfortunately, parents and teachers are not teaching what they "should" and it ends up being a matter for government to "take care of" in addressing criminal behavior. Then, we all pay for what others have not taken care of.
Society will not be able to function if parents and teachers are not able to help undergird and undertake "training" children to understand that it is not right to take another's toy, or that it is inappropriate to talk while the teacher is talking. Respect is a necessary value for one to learn in kindergarten.
Conservatives believe in individual liberties, but these liberties are not absolute, when it comes to required behavior. Society demands attention to other's rights, as well as one's own. The required behavior are written in the laws that define our society. But, conservatives limit the other's rights, when it intrudes upon their own. This is responsible behavior and it demands responsible and respectful behavior from others.
The liberal must love when others intrude upon their rights, because it means that they are "needed" and that they have a "function" in society. The liberal needs to be needed. He is the eternal co-dependent. The liberal views the conservative as selfish and narcisstic, as he believes that the "moral imperative" is an "absolute". And the liberal's moral absolute intrudes upon the conservative's liberty bias.
The conservative is not necessarily driven by "evil" in protecting his values of liberty and conscience. The conservative just values his own independence too much to allow government to "tell" him in a prescriptive way "who, what, when and how".
(Perhaps, I have over-stated the liberal's position, as I consider myself a conservative. But, it seems to me an injustice and a moral failure to "demand responsibility from one side and allow irresponsibility on the other. That is my take, at least.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
