Some believe in irrational faith. These believe that our actions 'prove" the validity of our faith, not by reason, itself,, but within the framework of an archetype. Reason is not "rational", or understood, except within a certain "paradigm". Such thinking is not 'universal' but culture specific.
Culture is an environment that adheres to certain standards, beliefs, norms, and values. Religious cultures are framed by religious authorities, inspired texts, doctrines, or 'accepted' moral models. These do not allow liberty because of their specific framing/paradigm. Reason in this sense is not 'free' to understand anything apart from the "affirmed culture" or accepted norm. Science, as well as religion frames understanding by accepted "rules" of understanding nature, or society. The difference, is that science is open to new information, at least in theory. Religion is not as open.
America believes that religious freedom is about individual conscience. The individual is free to choose where they will or will not associate. American values are determined by the "rule of law" defined in our Constitution. And our Constitution respects and protects individual liberty from government intrusion, but does it protect from "irrational faith' claims? This is what our nation faces in "irrational faith"s demand for equal protections under our Constitutional government. Equality under law means that irregardless of one's faith or lack thereof, there must be protections under law. Therefore, our nation is just.
Irrational faith is about speicified behavior, and beliefs that motivate such behavior. It cannot be reasoned with because of its commitment to the paradigm of choice. Defensiveness is the stance to "outside" attempts to re-frame one's life. Knowledge itself can be threatening because it brings cognitive challenges to one's chosen paradigm. Defensiveness to change protects "identity" itself.
"Life" is lived within these cultural frames, without realizing or reflecting on why these frames have any power to continue over one's life. Reasoned framing of life conflicts with foundational understandings about life and is too threatening to one's identity to "let go", or escape. Science, too attempts to understand 'new information' based upon past "frames" (accepted theories). But, whenever the paradigm shifts in scienctific understanding, there is also resistance. Science attempts to evaluate nature upon foundational physical/mathmatical undestandings.
I believe our brains encapsulate our memories. And memories are about emotions, as much as experience itself. The "feeling" of belonging to family, tribe or nation is too "human" to dismiss lightly. Our self-understanding is dependent on such connections and networking. A re-framing of one's identity is what happens whenever one discovers that their frame has lost "meaning" or significance for/to "self", as "self" is defined by these frames of reference. A re-defining of scientific understanding also challenges science's "identity", as science is a "culture", too.
Irrational believers don't stop to consider these aspects of "framing one's reality", because they are too "committed to their cause", thinking that the radical nature of their commitment confirms the "truth" of their irrational claims. And this kind of thinking thinks that everyone should believe and commit as they do, otherwise, there is "no faith".
Irrational faith is a limited way of thinking and being in the world. And it hinders "peace", because it limits diversity.
Showing posts with label equal under law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label equal under law. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
"Does History Progress?
Does history progress? Yes and No.
History is not like it was during the Barbarian Invasions, or is it?
History is like it has always has been and ever will be when we look at the need for balancing power. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Tyranny is the name for living under such absolute power.
We cannot survive without vision about our country's future. How and what can we do to make our country "better"? How will we progress into the future? Can we find a way forward through the "culture wars"?
How do we maintain civility when most everyone has lost a sense of direction, OR their sense of direction seems to be challenged? How are we to act as "a people" to one another? Do we believe and upholde the ultimate value of our nation, liberty?
Progress has been experienced in our country through scienctific discoveries, technological advances, and through social changes, that brought about a greater hope to all. Law is not just to maintain order, or control over others, but to bring about a culture that seeks to do justly. And the basis of our laws, is that we are all equal under law, this is what justice is.
Equal under law does not mean that we all have equal abilities, interests, or motivations. But, it does mean that whoever has a desire and will "to be" or "to do" will be given an opportunity. Our society should be invested in the human and the humane, as this is what our Declaration of Independence was/is about, natural rights.
Does history progress? It is up to you, as an individual, to see that it does, and that can only be done with the will to serve and be self-reflective.
History is not like it was during the Barbarian Invasions, or is it?
History is like it has always has been and ever will be when we look at the need for balancing power. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Tyranny is the name for living under such absolute power.
We cannot survive without vision about our country's future. How and what can we do to make our country "better"? How will we progress into the future? Can we find a way forward through the "culture wars"?
How do we maintain civility when most everyone has lost a sense of direction, OR their sense of direction seems to be challenged? How are we to act as "a people" to one another? Do we believe and upholde the ultimate value of our nation, liberty?
Progress has been experienced in our country through scienctific discoveries, technological advances, and through social changes, that brought about a greater hope to all. Law is not just to maintain order, or control over others, but to bring about a culture that seeks to do justly. And the basis of our laws, is that we are all equal under law, this is what justice is.
Equal under law does not mean that we all have equal abilities, interests, or motivations. But, it does mean that whoever has a desire and will "to be" or "to do" will be given an opportunity. Our society should be invested in the human and the humane, as this is what our Declaration of Independence was/is about, natural rights.
Does history progress? It is up to you, as an individual, to see that it does, and that can only be done with the will to serve and be self-reflective.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
The Difference Between Our Founding Revolution and Today's
America was founded to establish a different environment for human flourishing. This environment allowed for religious freedom, as well as self-interested "gold digging". There was to be no Divine Right of Kings, meaning that no one was above the law. All were created equal and were given the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Leaders were no different from "Peasants" in our country's estimation! We were equal AND free!
Today, it seems that leaders think that they must establish a "certain order" and/or outcome to maintain equality. This mind-set "flies in the face" of the self-governance that our Founders admired. The individual was a person in his own right. No authority, except the law was to have power over him, and that was only to limit license where it concerned another citizen.
Today, those with money and/or power tend to think that they can "bend the rules" to suit their purposes. And these have no sense of conscience where it concerns impinging upon another's boundary.
Although it is true that the Founding era allowed for slavery, it is also true that America fought for civil liberties, and "her people still do. Men are equal under the law, but are we as free?
Government was to be limited in the Founding era, as governemnt was to be "by the people and for the people". Government was no longer ruled by those who inherited the position but by those who "won the vote".
Today, those who "win the vote" must also win the pocketbooks. Those that run for office must have the means to establish their campaigns, and campaigns in our big county takes a lot of money. Does the influence of money in our politics corrupt? How can we limit such corruption?
Government was not to be a "society" itself, where leaders could have special priviledge behind its "walls". Government was to be not just representative, but accountable.
I wonder what the Founders would have thought if they had lived today? What would be their advice to us? And what could we learn from them?
Today, it seems that leaders think that they must establish a "certain order" and/or outcome to maintain equality. This mind-set "flies in the face" of the self-governance that our Founders admired. The individual was a person in his own right. No authority, except the law was to have power over him, and that was only to limit license where it concerned another citizen.
Today, those with money and/or power tend to think that they can "bend the rules" to suit their purposes. And these have no sense of conscience where it concerns impinging upon another's boundary.
Although it is true that the Founding era allowed for slavery, it is also true that America fought for civil liberties, and "her people still do. Men are equal under the law, but are we as free?
Government was to be limited in the Founding era, as governemnt was to be "by the people and for the people". Government was no longer ruled by those who inherited the position but by those who "won the vote".
Today, those who "win the vote" must also win the pocketbooks. Those that run for office must have the means to establish their campaigns, and campaigns in our big county takes a lot of money. Does the influence of money in our politics corrupt? How can we limit such corruption?
Government was not to be a "society" itself, where leaders could have special priviledge behind its "walls". Government was to be not just representative, but accountable.
I wonder what the Founders would have thought if they had lived today? What would be their advice to us? And what could we learn from them?
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Is a Particular Language Universal?
Structuralists believe that language holds the structures of society together. These believe that the rules of grammer determine the meaning. But, others do not believe this to be so.
In free societies, I know that words can have many meanings, because we allow for vast experiences that "form" or "condition" the meaning of certain words. But, in societies where certain terms are considered "sacred" or significant in some other way, I wonder how diverse the views might be. Wouldn't there be a limitation to meaning of "sacred words"?
This got me thinking about the term, "marriage". "Marriage" is understood in our society as a contract, as it is a legal document that binds the parties together under voluntary consent. But, there might be more meaning given to this word, if one is prone to understand marriage in a sacred context.
Marriage, then becomes a covenant, because God becomes a party to the contract. Religions tend to structure society around these structural units. But, the way they understand them and whether they are voluntary, between equal parties, or whether they are even between two individuals will vary greatly depending on the cultural context and the religion's definitions.
The experience of the individual within different societies will determine whether there will be different understandings of terms in a given language. And religion determines whether this is a possibility.
The question then becomes for me; "Is the individual the primary source of "expression" and giftedness to society. Therefore society is a servant to the individual's needs?" Or, "Is society of primal significance in the conditioning of the individual and determines how the individual will "give back" to society? Therefore, the social structures are most important to protect for the individual's development?" I tend to believe that both are necessary, of course, but when social structures do not serve the individual in their innatedness, then it can lead to all kinds of dysfuntion. But, what is innate? How does the mind process the brain's stimuli?
I think the debate is held on the basis of a "Structuralist" or a "Functionalist" understanding of social structures or/and individuals.
In free societies, I know that words can have many meanings, because we allow for vast experiences that "form" or "condition" the meaning of certain words. But, in societies where certain terms are considered "sacred" or significant in some other way, I wonder how diverse the views might be. Wouldn't there be a limitation to meaning of "sacred words"?
This got me thinking about the term, "marriage". "Marriage" is understood in our society as a contract, as it is a legal document that binds the parties together under voluntary consent. But, there might be more meaning given to this word, if one is prone to understand marriage in a sacred context.
Marriage, then becomes a covenant, because God becomes a party to the contract. Religions tend to structure society around these structural units. But, the way they understand them and whether they are voluntary, between equal parties, or whether they are even between two individuals will vary greatly depending on the cultural context and the religion's definitions.
The experience of the individual within different societies will determine whether there will be different understandings of terms in a given language. And religion determines whether this is a possibility.
The question then becomes for me; "Is the individual the primary source of "expression" and giftedness to society. Therefore society is a servant to the individual's needs?" Or, "Is society of primal significance in the conditioning of the individual and determines how the individual will "give back" to society? Therefore, the social structures are most important to protect for the individual's development?" I tend to believe that both are necessary, of course, but when social structures do not serve the individual in their innatedness, then it can lead to all kinds of dysfuntion. But, what is innate? How does the mind process the brain's stimuli?
I think the debate is held on the basis of a "Structuralist" or a "Functionalist" understanding of social structures or/and individuals.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Character, As the Unseen
Character is about actions, gifting, and personality. But, character is also about the internal motivations of a given action.
Does someone act in a certain way because it is the 'expected thing to do"? Then, the character of this person is a social conformist. These are people that "fit in" because they are understood to be the "good guys". But, is this considered to be the highest motivation of choosing a certain course of action? Certainly, people should act in ways that are usually expected, because this is what promotes social stability. But, if someone does something that is not according to conformity, then how is that action judged?
Some would judge a 'non-conformist' action by the action's results, others would judge the action's principle value, while still others, would judge the action itself as wrong because the action was not in accordance with "tradition", or social conformity.
Most of us are not consistant in our judgments, because we are not aware of why we judge a certain action. And some would never understand "consistancy" or "principle" as a "right action" , because these are people who believe that individuals are more important than "ideologies", agendas, or "principled conscience". These are considered the "humanists" amongst us.
Character cannot be understood by any one aspect, as character is about the whole "package of a person"; their action, their innate nature, their experiences, and their values.
Because people are so diverse in their understandings and "ways of being", free societies are the best form of government for human flourishing. Free societies can affirm the disciplines of scientific exploration and questioning the status quo that can help man understand what is best for human flourishing, and at the same time be humane in affirming opportunity for the individual as equal under law.
Does someone act in a certain way because it is the 'expected thing to do"? Then, the character of this person is a social conformist. These are people that "fit in" because they are understood to be the "good guys". But, is this considered to be the highest motivation of choosing a certain course of action? Certainly, people should act in ways that are usually expected, because this is what promotes social stability. But, if someone does something that is not according to conformity, then how is that action judged?
Some would judge a 'non-conformist' action by the action's results, others would judge the action's principle value, while still others, would judge the action itself as wrong because the action was not in accordance with "tradition", or social conformity.
Most of us are not consistant in our judgments, because we are not aware of why we judge a certain action. And some would never understand "consistancy" or "principle" as a "right action" , because these are people who believe that individuals are more important than "ideologies", agendas, or "principled conscience". These are considered the "humanists" amongst us.
Character cannot be understood by any one aspect, as character is about the whole "package of a person"; their action, their innate nature, their experiences, and their values.
Because people are so diverse in their understandings and "ways of being", free societies are the best form of government for human flourishing. Free societies can affirm the disciplines of scientific exploration and questioning the status quo that can help man understand what is best for human flourishing, and at the same time be humane in affirming opportunity for the individual as equal under law.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
A VERT GRAVE MISTAKE !
In last post, I made a grave mistake. I stated that government was never meant to give power, but to limit power.
In one sense, this is true, as it limits what one can do to another, but I also believe that limited government is what the Founders intended for our free society. Limited government doesn't give power by enabling bad behavior that disregards another's life. But, it does give power in the sense of enabling the individual to choose and determine his own destiny. That is the "ideal".
But, experience underlines the facts. And the facts are that all are not equal in opportunity. Some believe it is the government's job to rectify that "injustice'. This is what our country does in minority rights. But, as I have expressed before, minority rights can bring about reverse discrimination, the unintended consequence.
The world is filled with 'injustice" and I don't think that injustice will ever be resolved completely, because there are always two sides to any issue, if not more. We must do what we can or will to prepare for injustice. And this is why laws are in place, in the first place.
In one sense, this is true, as it limits what one can do to another, but I also believe that limited government is what the Founders intended for our free society. Limited government doesn't give power by enabling bad behavior that disregards another's life. But, it does give power in the sense of enabling the individual to choose and determine his own destiny. That is the "ideal".
But, experience underlines the facts. And the facts are that all are not equal in opportunity. Some believe it is the government's job to rectify that "injustice'. This is what our country does in minority rights. But, as I have expressed before, minority rights can bring about reverse discrimination, the unintended consequence.
The world is filled with 'injustice" and I don't think that injustice will ever be resolved completely, because there are always two sides to any issue, if not more. We must do what we can or will to prepare for injustice. And this is why laws are in place, in the first place.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Power Corrupts
It has been said, "Power corrupts and absolute power, corrupts absolutely". Why is this so? Power gives a sense of being above the frey of "common man". Power is exillerating because one can choose and "make things happen". World events and history can be changed due to the use of power. But, history has also understood what absolute power does in any position. This is the brillance of our Founding Fathers in establishing our three branches of government. The executive branch was not considered to be the "rule of a King". The people had a voice in their government through their vote for Congressional candidates and the judicial branch has granted individual liberties to those that were persecuted or discriminated against.
It used to be believed that power was given by God and therefore, rulers ruled under the authority of God-given power. The peasant classes were to submit and deter to what "God had ordained". Heridatary power was understood to be the priviledged and empowered classes and Kings made treaties based on marriage contracts.
But, our Founders understood that all people were created equal, with certain inalienable rights. These rights were natural rights, not supernaturally given or sanctioned. Men were to recognize and respect another's right to life and liberty and their pursuit of happiness. This was the basis of our Constitution and has been the fodder of the human rights movement.
Individuals are respected in our country's very "ideals" and power is limited by "the rule of law". Therefore, I am thankful that I live in a country that respects the "rule of law" and wants to pursue justice, stand against injustice and resist those that think thier power is absolute.
It used to be believed that power was given by God and therefore, rulers ruled under the authority of God-given power. The peasant classes were to submit and deter to what "God had ordained". Heridatary power was understood to be the priviledged and empowered classes and Kings made treaties based on marriage contracts.
But, our Founders understood that all people were created equal, with certain inalienable rights. These rights were natural rights, not supernaturally given or sanctioned. Men were to recognize and respect another's right to life and liberty and their pursuit of happiness. This was the basis of our Constitution and has been the fodder of the human rights movement.
Individuals are respected in our country's very "ideals" and power is limited by "the rule of law". Therefore, I am thankful that I live in a country that respects the "rule of law" and wants to pursue justice, stand against injustice and resist those that think thier power is absolute.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Discrimination About Discrimination
Civil rights has a turbulant history in American culture. And we are still "fighting for civil rights". But, has civil rights outweighed the value of society's value of "the common good" because of its overemphasis?
Minority rights "won the day" when minoritiesad the right to be represented through "quotas". Quotas brings hand-wringing to some camps that discriminate by "nature". That is, they discriminate to define themselves apart from the larger context of society. Such is the case with a conservative school and homosexual teachers.
Minority rights has been accepted as a "standard" of fairness. And minority rights are protected by civil liberties. But, are civil liberties just as keen on protecting a "creationist educator"? I believe so. But, the cultural climate is not conducive, these days, for diversity, as just as in quotas, there is a conscious effort to value the "politically correct".
I think that our society has really baffled others, as we have no culture that supports a generalized view of life, as we believe in individual liberties and cultural diversity. This is all welll and good, until the culture becomes so diverse that there is no consensus of any kind to appeal to rationality. This is what America faces in its "culture wars".
Is everyone going to get represented equally? Or will those who have 'politically incorrect" views going to be discriminated against, because the power of the government has the force to "keep them in line"? Is government "protecting us" from information "for our own good"?
Conservative churches are afriad that they will have to pledge allegience to the "cultural ideal" of diversity, at the expense of dissolving the values of the churches populace. Atheists are "drooling at the mouth" over such unfortunate situations, as they might want to make a case against religious freedom on the basis of "discrimination". Our Founders would be appalled!
Each religious group has just as much right to survive in the "cultural wars" as a minority. But, minoirity rights are politically correct because these vote in the next election. Conservative organizational structures do not vote and the individuals in such organizations probably wouldn't vote for a "plural view" of society in the first place. So, politically, the conservative organization is marginalized or useful only to promote agendas that "appear to be fair", while "hoodwinking those in its bow".
The only solution to the cultural wars is the libertarian position. Individuals taking responsibility for their own lives, without govenment interference. This way there are no 'priviledged positions" that give one a 'right over another", and there are no priviledged "people" because of a 'right" made to bring retribution. And government would have to listen to those whose liberties are bing plundered. Government would finally be held accountable to the people, and not the people to the government.
Our country has changed in regards to entitlement. No one deserves anything other than proper respect and dignity, as a human being and being treated equally under law as a citizen. But, nowadays, young people are able to take time out from school and dont' have to hold down a job while in school ,because parents are wealthy enough to "make it easy". Some of these young people grow up to expect the world to "stand at attention" for them and when it doesn't, "Mama can't do anything about it".
My grandfather and those in his generation grew up understanding that life was about working to make a living, being responsible to their government in serving their country and acting respectfully to authority. Today, this is not the case and society suffers because of it.
The 50's brought America prosperity that spoiled us, but allowed us the freedom to innovate, as we were also wealthy enough to not worry if we didn't make the money right away. There was enough to put "food on the table". Today, we are back to square one, working feverishly to "make a living".
I heard that some believe this economic crisis is good for families, as it demands that they spend more time eating together around the table and playing games at home. Though these "images" bring 'warmth to our hearts", these images are not of everyone's family. Financial concerns are the number one culprit of marital discord. And some who face financial crisis will have to get a second job, instead of eating around the table with their children, these will be more tired and more absent from their families, even when they are at home.
Prosperity is not the enemy, though Marxist ideologues would like to sell us that "bill of goods". Prosperity is a sign of hard work, innovation, wise decision making, investment, responsibility, and self-governance. The problem with today's prosperity is that too many Americans bought too much too soon and got in debt over their heads. And those in the financial fields got greedy of gaining on their investments at too high an interest rate. It is always easy to play with other people's money and livlihoods.
So discrimination is not just about race, but also about choice, value, and lifestyle. No one can make right decisons for you, as individuals must make that choice for themselves for it to have any moral value. Americans have not been used to moral dilemmas, or ethical evaluations for the most part.
And not remembering the mistakes of the past, ensures that we will experience the results of those mistakes again.
Minority rights "won the day" when minoritiesad the right to be represented through "quotas". Quotas brings hand-wringing to some camps that discriminate by "nature". That is, they discriminate to define themselves apart from the larger context of society. Such is the case with a conservative school and homosexual teachers.
Minority rights has been accepted as a "standard" of fairness. And minority rights are protected by civil liberties. But, are civil liberties just as keen on protecting a "creationist educator"? I believe so. But, the cultural climate is not conducive, these days, for diversity, as just as in quotas, there is a conscious effort to value the "politically correct".
I think that our society has really baffled others, as we have no culture that supports a generalized view of life, as we believe in individual liberties and cultural diversity. This is all welll and good, until the culture becomes so diverse that there is no consensus of any kind to appeal to rationality. This is what America faces in its "culture wars".
Is everyone going to get represented equally? Or will those who have 'politically incorrect" views going to be discriminated against, because the power of the government has the force to "keep them in line"? Is government "protecting us" from information "for our own good"?
Conservative churches are afriad that they will have to pledge allegience to the "cultural ideal" of diversity, at the expense of dissolving the values of the churches populace. Atheists are "drooling at the mouth" over such unfortunate situations, as they might want to make a case against religious freedom on the basis of "discrimination". Our Founders would be appalled!
Each religious group has just as much right to survive in the "cultural wars" as a minority. But, minoirity rights are politically correct because these vote in the next election. Conservative organizational structures do not vote and the individuals in such organizations probably wouldn't vote for a "plural view" of society in the first place. So, politically, the conservative organization is marginalized or useful only to promote agendas that "appear to be fair", while "hoodwinking those in its bow".
The only solution to the cultural wars is the libertarian position. Individuals taking responsibility for their own lives, without govenment interference. This way there are no 'priviledged positions" that give one a 'right over another", and there are no priviledged "people" because of a 'right" made to bring retribution. And government would have to listen to those whose liberties are bing plundered. Government would finally be held accountable to the people, and not the people to the government.
Our country has changed in regards to entitlement. No one deserves anything other than proper respect and dignity, as a human being and being treated equally under law as a citizen. But, nowadays, young people are able to take time out from school and dont' have to hold down a job while in school ,because parents are wealthy enough to "make it easy". Some of these young people grow up to expect the world to "stand at attention" for them and when it doesn't, "Mama can't do anything about it".
My grandfather and those in his generation grew up understanding that life was about working to make a living, being responsible to their government in serving their country and acting respectfully to authority. Today, this is not the case and society suffers because of it.
The 50's brought America prosperity that spoiled us, but allowed us the freedom to innovate, as we were also wealthy enough to not worry if we didn't make the money right away. There was enough to put "food on the table". Today, we are back to square one, working feverishly to "make a living".
I heard that some believe this economic crisis is good for families, as it demands that they spend more time eating together around the table and playing games at home. Though these "images" bring 'warmth to our hearts", these images are not of everyone's family. Financial concerns are the number one culprit of marital discord. And some who face financial crisis will have to get a second job, instead of eating around the table with their children, these will be more tired and more absent from their families, even when they are at home.
Prosperity is not the enemy, though Marxist ideologues would like to sell us that "bill of goods". Prosperity is a sign of hard work, innovation, wise decision making, investment, responsibility, and self-governance. The problem with today's prosperity is that too many Americans bought too much too soon and got in debt over their heads. And those in the financial fields got greedy of gaining on their investments at too high an interest rate. It is always easy to play with other people's money and livlihoods.
So discrimination is not just about race, but also about choice, value, and lifestyle. No one can make right decisons for you, as individuals must make that choice for themselves for it to have any moral value. Americans have not been used to moral dilemmas, or ethical evaluations for the most part.
And not remembering the mistakes of the past, ensures that we will experience the results of those mistakes again.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Law MUST Protect Rights (Freedom)
We are a nation of law (and order). And because we value law, we are an ordered or civilized society. What happens to society when laws are disregarded, or abused?
Man is a rational animal and rationality is developed by understanding rights before the law and coming to terms with one's ultimate values. Every human deserves the right to have a sense of freedom about their life, so that they can take responsibility for themselves. This is a basic human right.
Governments and people who do not value laws that protect rights are disrepectful of another's life. Motivation and human flourishing does not occur as freely and frequently in oppressive regimes, which affects society itself. Humans must be free to choose where their responsibilities will be and where their ultimate values and commitments lie.
Religious dictators would subvert another's choice through "God's will", or "God's Purpose", while political dictators subvert another's choices through subversion of rights under law.
We should value our freedom and undestand our rights as granted by laws and protected by our "Representative Republic".
Man is a rational animal and rationality is developed by understanding rights before the law and coming to terms with one's ultimate values. Every human deserves the right to have a sense of freedom about their life, so that they can take responsibility for themselves. This is a basic human right.
Governments and people who do not value laws that protect rights are disrepectful of another's life. Motivation and human flourishing does not occur as freely and frequently in oppressive regimes, which affects society itself. Humans must be free to choose where their responsibilities will be and where their ultimate values and commitments lie.
Religious dictators would subvert another's choice through "God's will", or "God's Purpose", while political dictators subvert another's choices through subversion of rights under law.
We should value our freedom and undestand our rights as granted by laws and protected by our "Representative Republic".
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Law Is the Boundary Between Reason and Revelation
I have been thinking about the extremes of faith apart from reason and reason apart from faith. One cannot ignore the "fall-out" of these two extremes. The casualties are of rationale and mystery.
Reason without faith leave one making decisions arrogantly, because what is known is all that should be known. But, faith without reason is no less arrogant becasue it dismisses any knowledge that one can gain in the world and makes foolish mistakes.
Laws protect us from these irregularities because our nation is based on "equality under the law". Law protects from the "sins" of tresspassing. Americans live in peace because we do not have to fear government interference or individual indiscretions. But, if we have occasion to experience such atrocities, then we have recourse, "under law".
Law protects us from the arrogant.
Reason without faith leave one making decisions arrogantly, because what is known is all that should be known. But, faith without reason is no less arrogant becasue it dismisses any knowledge that one can gain in the world and makes foolish mistakes.
Laws protect us from these irregularities because our nation is based on "equality under the law". Law protects from the "sins" of tresspassing. Americans live in peace because we do not have to fear government interference or individual indiscretions. But, if we have occasion to experience such atrocities, then we have recourse, "under law".
Law protects us from the arrogant.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
What Kndergarten Can't Teach
Yesterday's post was one of reflecting on the "world's problems, and the foundations of society. I admit that "rights" undermine the foundations of family, community and Church ( or any other organized structure). But, the question is not one of foundation but ultimate principle. What are the foundational principles that lead a free society? What are ultimate values that must be allowed if society is to remain free? These are questions Kindergarten can't teach you.
'Rights' do undermine "groups", because they are by definition individually identified in free societies. Without upholding civil liberties, then we are doomed to fulfill another's value system, which just might include slavery, patronage, or any other "out-dated" or discrimanatory system.
Perhaps, some would adhere to these systems as they help to create an ordered organizational structuring and functioning. But, at what costs? The "outcome" in business venures, is indeed profit. So, how does one do business and maintain a healthy stance toward those whose "place", "function" or "role" is necessary in producing that "profit"? Does one reward those who produce 'profit margins" and is there a "moral" standard to gauge the dollar value to an individual in a specific company? Will the workers be rewarded, as well as the CEO? At what costs do companies make their profit in human capital. Or should humans "be" capital? Justice should be the "by-word" when it comes to company assests. Reward should be based on risks, investments, time, training, and service.
America has become great because of private enterprise, creative innovation, and corporate co-operation. Individuals associate with what advances their interests, as well as the company's. Motivation does not have to be driven by an outside force, but by the passion of those committed to the vision of the company.
Other countries where companies are "used" or owned by the government do not have widespread economic prosperity, because government brings a cumbersome administration that inhibits "fine-tuning" in the specifics of a company . And it makes much room for unaccountable abuses of government "power" and wasted resources. Those who hold the reigns of control are the ones that are profited most, and when government advances its own interests, instead of the people's interest, incentive suffers and corruption abounds.
Kindergarten can't teach you what is of personal value or what one must commit to. The "shoulds" are not personal commitments of value, but are social guidelines for maintaining ethical business practices or social order under a limited government. This is what the law is and does. The law never should tell us the details of our personal lives.
'Rights' do undermine "groups", because they are by definition individually identified in free societies. Without upholding civil liberties, then we are doomed to fulfill another's value system, which just might include slavery, patronage, or any other "out-dated" or discrimanatory system.
Perhaps, some would adhere to these systems as they help to create an ordered organizational structuring and functioning. But, at what costs? The "outcome" in business venures, is indeed profit. So, how does one do business and maintain a healthy stance toward those whose "place", "function" or "role" is necessary in producing that "profit"? Does one reward those who produce 'profit margins" and is there a "moral" standard to gauge the dollar value to an individual in a specific company? Will the workers be rewarded, as well as the CEO? At what costs do companies make their profit in human capital. Or should humans "be" capital? Justice should be the "by-word" when it comes to company assests. Reward should be based on risks, investments, time, training, and service.
America has become great because of private enterprise, creative innovation, and corporate co-operation. Individuals associate with what advances their interests, as well as the company's. Motivation does not have to be driven by an outside force, but by the passion of those committed to the vision of the company.
Other countries where companies are "used" or owned by the government do not have widespread economic prosperity, because government brings a cumbersome administration that inhibits "fine-tuning" in the specifics of a company . And it makes much room for unaccountable abuses of government "power" and wasted resources. Those who hold the reigns of control are the ones that are profited most, and when government advances its own interests, instead of the people's interest, incentive suffers and corruption abounds.
Kindergarten can't teach you what is of personal value or what one must commit to. The "shoulds" are not personal commitments of value, but are social guidelines for maintaining ethical business practices or social order under a limited government. This is what the law is and does. The law never should tell us the details of our personal lives.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Other Racial Issues
Issues such as race have various emotional responses due to one's experience, understanding and conditioning. We, in America, have the "ideal" that all are created equal and should be represented by "law". These are citizen rights.
But, with today's climate of radicalization of religion, race seems to matter more. Americans and others in the West have experienced, and seen what happens to those who dismiss the danger of radical religion. So, in today's climate, we not only divide ourselves along racial lines, but religious ones, as well.
Just yesterday, a Muslim prindipal dismissed a Christian teacher. My husband told me that it was due to his Christian faith. Because Americans are "taught" that toleration is the highest virtue, we tend not to try to distinguish when we need to. Just as the lady who called the police was "at fault", even though she did what was reasonable and upheld the standards of good citzenship, Islam has a "favored" status when it comes to discrimination. And African Americans have favored status as it concerns Affirmative Action.
Minority rights grants a prividledge to those on the basis of their skin color or their religion. Is this just? When we try to rectify the past, are we harming the future and inadvertedly hindering all of us in being Americans, first? Why are we identifying ourselves as "African-American", "American Indian", or "American caucasian"? We are divided by "racial" and "religious" histories, instead of owning our national history and its development into a nation of diverse peoples, where the individual is acknowledged and valued. The Founding Fathers made our nation a nation ruled by law, and no "special elite", whether religious or racial. This is the freedom and value of being "equal under law".
Instead of identifying along the lines of "group think" which distinguishes what is uneccesary, why not distinguish ourselves as individual Americans? With America's ideals, and progressiveness, do we doubt that we could find a better tomorrow? We need to get back to thinking responsibly about our country and its values, not taking them for granted, but upholding the value of citizenship. And we need to be thankful for the freedoms and all that it allows in our diverse and blessed country.
But, with today's climate of radicalization of religion, race seems to matter more. Americans and others in the West have experienced, and seen what happens to those who dismiss the danger of radical religion. So, in today's climate, we not only divide ourselves along racial lines, but religious ones, as well.
Just yesterday, a Muslim prindipal dismissed a Christian teacher. My husband told me that it was due to his Christian faith. Because Americans are "taught" that toleration is the highest virtue, we tend not to try to distinguish when we need to. Just as the lady who called the police was "at fault", even though she did what was reasonable and upheld the standards of good citzenship, Islam has a "favored" status when it comes to discrimination. And African Americans have favored status as it concerns Affirmative Action.
Minority rights grants a prividledge to those on the basis of their skin color or their religion. Is this just? When we try to rectify the past, are we harming the future and inadvertedly hindering all of us in being Americans, first? Why are we identifying ourselves as "African-American", "American Indian", or "American caucasian"? We are divided by "racial" and "religious" histories, instead of owning our national history and its development into a nation of diverse peoples, where the individual is acknowledged and valued. The Founding Fathers made our nation a nation ruled by law, and no "special elite", whether religious or racial. This is the freedom and value of being "equal under law".
Instead of identifying along the lines of "group think" which distinguishes what is uneccesary, why not distinguish ourselves as individual Americans? With America's ideals, and progressiveness, do we doubt that we could find a better tomorrow? We need to get back to thinking responsibly about our country and its values, not taking them for granted, but upholding the value of citizenship. And we need to be thankful for the freedoms and all that it allows in our diverse and blessed country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
