I bought my husband a card a few years ago, because it said what I believe about marriage. And I plan on giving the same card to my son's friend today, as he embarks on "a challenge of his lifetime"! All healthy relationships are defined, I believe, on some or most of these principles, so I thought I would share them, as they are of important value to me.
Marriage is (by Barbara Cage)
A commitment. Its success
doesn't depend on circumstances,
feelings, or moods-but on
two people who are loyal to
each other and the vows they
took on their wedding day....
A relationship where two people
must listen, compromise, and respect.
It's an arrangement that requires a
multitude of decisions to be made
together. Listening, respecting, and
compromising go a long way toward
keeping peace and harmony.
A union in which two people learn
form their mistakes, accept each
other's faults, and willingly adjust
bahaviors that need to be changed.
It's caring enough about each other
to work throught disappointing and
hurtful times and believing in the
love that brought you together in the
first place.
Patience and forgiveness. It's being
open and honest, thoughtful and kind.
Marriage means talking things out,
making necessary changes, and forgiving
each other. It's unconditional love at it's
most understanding and vulnerable-
love supports, comforts, and is
determined to triumph over every challenge
and adversity.
Marriage is a partnership of two unique
people who bring out the very best in each
other and who know that even though
they are wonderful as individuals
they are even better together.
Except for the personal terms, i.e. forgiveness, disappointing and hurtful times,I believe that this kind of commitment could also be applied to other kinds of relationships (business, and diplomacy). The personal terms are to be replaced by the "rule of law", which is considered respect in a civil society.
Showing posts with label equal under law and order. Show all posts
Showing posts with label equal under law and order. Show all posts
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Is Law Our Basis?
The rule of law is the basis of maintaining order in our society. Our Constitutional Republic is understood as a representative government where the individual and religious liberty was an important value.
The problem today is when our nation-state has been impacted and threatened by those who voice their "religious right" to undermine our humane laws.
Right now, the Supreme Court will rule on whether the Baptist Church had a right to religious speech when they caused emotional pain to the parents at their son's funeral.
When other religious "speech" such as terrorists acts are committed against our society, we treat them as criminals. Should there be a distinction between the nation-state's right and the individual's right? Is the individual a private citizen, or a public pawn? Where do we draw our distinctions? Weren't we basically a Judeo-Christian nation in our earliest days? We have affirmed both public responsibility and the private right of citizens. Which one will win in the end? The tension must be maintained if we want to continue to have religious freedom and private lives.
Our laws are not based on "God", but are based on the individual's right to his "own person". How does a humane nation uphold the "rule of law" and yet, allow religious liberty to those that undermine that law? Don't we hold them accountable to the law for the sake of our society? Or is freedom of speech too important a value to undermine? If we go down the road of limiting speech, then won't it undermine most speech in the end?
While our laws are not based solely on "God", neither are the values of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness based on science.
Just recently, there was a British "commercial" for an organization that promotes Climate Control. In that "commercial" the teacher is asking if her students would choose to further the flourishing of mankind through limiting their comsumption of energy and the emission of "gases". Would they take public transportation? Two of these students stood up to such governmental control over their choice. The teacher affirmed their right of choice, but in the end, pushes a button that kills them, splattering their blood on the others in the classroom.
This "outrage" of inhumanity is not the only 'outrage", as it was shown on a talk show recently, in Britian, that a well-known scientist suggested that she would smother her child, rather than allow the child to suffer. There was obvious discomfort from the interviewer to her response. The question was asked again, but the scientist still held to her view that it was important to protect her child from suffering by killing.
Whether Western society survives the onslaught of religious fanaticism or scientific positivism is the question. The West is at a crossroads to what our future will be and how we will go forward, or will we be destroyed?
The problem today is when our nation-state has been impacted and threatened by those who voice their "religious right" to undermine our humane laws.
Right now, the Supreme Court will rule on whether the Baptist Church had a right to religious speech when they caused emotional pain to the parents at their son's funeral.
When other religious "speech" such as terrorists acts are committed against our society, we treat them as criminals. Should there be a distinction between the nation-state's right and the individual's right? Is the individual a private citizen, or a public pawn? Where do we draw our distinctions? Weren't we basically a Judeo-Christian nation in our earliest days? We have affirmed both public responsibility and the private right of citizens. Which one will win in the end? The tension must be maintained if we want to continue to have religious freedom and private lives.
Our laws are not based on "God", but are based on the individual's right to his "own person". How does a humane nation uphold the "rule of law" and yet, allow religious liberty to those that undermine that law? Don't we hold them accountable to the law for the sake of our society? Or is freedom of speech too important a value to undermine? If we go down the road of limiting speech, then won't it undermine most speech in the end?
While our laws are not based solely on "God", neither are the values of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness based on science.
Just recently, there was a British "commercial" for an organization that promotes Climate Control. In that "commercial" the teacher is asking if her students would choose to further the flourishing of mankind through limiting their comsumption of energy and the emission of "gases". Would they take public transportation? Two of these students stood up to such governmental control over their choice. The teacher affirmed their right of choice, but in the end, pushes a button that kills them, splattering their blood on the others in the classroom.
This "outrage" of inhumanity is not the only 'outrage", as it was shown on a talk show recently, in Britian, that a well-known scientist suggested that she would smother her child, rather than allow the child to suffer. There was obvious discomfort from the interviewer to her response. The question was asked again, but the scientist still held to her view that it was important to protect her child from suffering by killing.
Whether Western society survives the onslaught of religious fanaticism or scientific positivism is the question. The West is at a crossroads to what our future will be and how we will go forward, or will we be destroyed?
Monday, April 12, 2010
Asher Lev's Rejection of Traditional Answers
My husband and I went to see the play, "Asher Lev", based on a book that freshmen had to read for a mandantory course. It is about the life of a Hasidic Jew, who is a gifted artist and his coming to "crossroads" about where his ultimate commitment will be.
Art is a "tradition" itself, Asher is told by another artist, who becomes his mentor. Art has certain values, that conflicted with Asher's religious tradition. Art is studying the form of the body, the nude, which is forbidden under religious laws. And art is valued by those that usually don't value his religious tradition.
Asher chooses to "find himself" rather than submit to his religious tradition. This is where he has to "let go" of his former life, as he understood it. He comes into an understanding of himself as an artist and not just as a Jewish man.
I find most conservative religious traditions prescribe these types of limitations. Limitations about what one should or shouldn't do, and what one should or shouldn't believe. Such nonsense, when the supernatural is not understood in real world terms, but only in the speculations of religious visionaries that tend to be authoritarian because of such understandings.
America is the "land of the free" because it understands itself as the home of the brave. Americans were the pioneers in a new world and with a new world order. We understood the value of equality under law, liberty as a value, and made a commitment that we would universalize these values as human rights.
Human rights is not just a universal, but is understood to be for the individual. We are diverse, becasue we believe in individual liberties, and the right to pursue one's own ends in volutary association of contractual relationships. Humans can flourish and find themselves in such a system of government. And Americans believe, for the most part, that this is a universal right, the right of a representative government.
Art is a "tradition" itself, Asher is told by another artist, who becomes his mentor. Art has certain values, that conflicted with Asher's religious tradition. Art is studying the form of the body, the nude, which is forbidden under religious laws. And art is valued by those that usually don't value his religious tradition.
Asher chooses to "find himself" rather than submit to his religious tradition. This is where he has to "let go" of his former life, as he understood it. He comes into an understanding of himself as an artist and not just as a Jewish man.
I find most conservative religious traditions prescribe these types of limitations. Limitations about what one should or shouldn't do, and what one should or shouldn't believe. Such nonsense, when the supernatural is not understood in real world terms, but only in the speculations of religious visionaries that tend to be authoritarian because of such understandings.
America is the "land of the free" because it understands itself as the home of the brave. Americans were the pioneers in a new world and with a new world order. We understood the value of equality under law, liberty as a value, and made a commitment that we would universalize these values as human rights.
Human rights is not just a universal, but is understood to be for the individual. We are diverse, becasue we believe in individual liberties, and the right to pursue one's own ends in volutary association of contractual relationships. Humans can flourish and find themselves in such a system of government. And Americans believe, for the most part, that this is a universal right, the right of a representative government.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
The "Scary Part" of Science
Natural science has been understood to be the "order" that establishes the universe. These "laws" are what physicists call "natural laws" that "rule" over what we know about the world. Today, science asks and is seeking the answer to "an order" that defines the universe. These 'laws" would be 'universal' and would underwrite the "world's structure".
Social scientists are also interested in what maintains the "social order". It has been thought that social structures themselves were what defined social norms and created the environment where humans flourished. These are family therapists, social psychologists, and social structuralists.
But, where the social sciences have defined "order" by the environment, these sciences are now trying to understand and integrate what biological science is finding to be true in the physical aspects of "being human". The brain is thought to carry the signature of the universe within its structure. This intersection of environment and biology has wrought much wrangling in its wake, as religion is being "outsourced" to the physical sciences.
But my concern is; so what if the brain reveals a "universal structure"? Does that necessitate a certain monistic understanding of "life", as far as environment? Are differences to be appreciated and affirmed or controlled and stipulated by "proper form" according to "brain science". This is where the "mind/brain" understanding comes into discussion and what makes for "the human", as far as I can understand. Without diversity of culture and personality, the world will be less colorful and enjoyable to the individual.
The individual will be defined by a "scientific society" that will form the rules that define tightly what is proper order. And this order will be defined by a certain culture, religion, race, and this "form" of thinking is what has led to genocide, ethnic cleansing, discrimination, and such. We must be aware of the social aspects of applications of science, so that science does not do disservice to mankind.
Order is what is created in societies by laws. But, order that is not flexible or accomodating to individuality is tyrannical. This is where science is limited, because "who can know another's mind" except one who has personal exposure and experience with another. Minds are different in this way.
Social scientists are also interested in what maintains the "social order". It has been thought that social structures themselves were what defined social norms and created the environment where humans flourished. These are family therapists, social psychologists, and social structuralists.
But, where the social sciences have defined "order" by the environment, these sciences are now trying to understand and integrate what biological science is finding to be true in the physical aspects of "being human". The brain is thought to carry the signature of the universe within its structure. This intersection of environment and biology has wrought much wrangling in its wake, as religion is being "outsourced" to the physical sciences.
But my concern is; so what if the brain reveals a "universal structure"? Does that necessitate a certain monistic understanding of "life", as far as environment? Are differences to be appreciated and affirmed or controlled and stipulated by "proper form" according to "brain science". This is where the "mind/brain" understanding comes into discussion and what makes for "the human", as far as I can understand. Without diversity of culture and personality, the world will be less colorful and enjoyable to the individual.
The individual will be defined by a "scientific society" that will form the rules that define tightly what is proper order. And this order will be defined by a certain culture, religion, race, and this "form" of thinking is what has led to genocide, ethnic cleansing, discrimination, and such. We must be aware of the social aspects of applications of science, so that science does not do disservice to mankind.
Order is what is created in societies by laws. But, order that is not flexible or accomodating to individuality is tyrannical. This is where science is limited, because "who can know another's mind" except one who has personal exposure and experience with another. Minds are different in this way.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
The Wrong Side of Multiculturalism
Today, emphasis is put upon multiculturalism in the name and for the sake of tolerance. Tolerance is a value in Western society as it civilizes what otherwise, would cause conflict. I am in totol agreement with this "ideal", but the reality is, that many do not adhere to plurality. Plurality takes humility of mind and heart and exlusivist religious claims do not allow such tolerance.
Fort Hood's "battleground" was to be a place of safety where "liberty and justice rules" and "peace reigns", because of our liberal democracy. It is to our detriment that we "tiptoe around" the issue of radical faith claims.
It seems obvious that the man that killed these soldiers in cold blood was doing so for religious reasons. Yes, there were political differences, but the differences were basically underwritten by this man's religious convictions. This view is not open to pluralistic views or values, because it views any "other" as "infidel". How can we tolerate such thinking and being in our society? or at least in our military?
When men/women pledge their allegience to the cause of our nation, they give up the right to digress from serving what leaders deem necessary for our nation's interests. Those that think that there is a higher or more primal loyalty do not need to be pledging their allegience.
Those that think that societies can live without police officiers are living in an a disconnect from reality or are in mental institutions. Crime happens and people get hurt, should we look the other way? Should we tolerate such things, or worse, should we dissolve the "force" of the police officier because we think the police officier is the "problem"? Of course not!
Our military do similar things in the larger context of "world affairs". Whenever nations rise up against another, should we looke the other way? Should we dissolve the military of any "force" because they are the problem? Or should we evaluate our values and determine whether this is a cause that justifies our nation's interest and the interest of a "free world"?
The world does not change in this regard. We will always have need for law to bring order and the police and military are the enforcers of what is "right" in the "free world" under law.
Fort Hood's "battleground" was to be a place of safety where "liberty and justice rules" and "peace reigns", because of our liberal democracy. It is to our detriment that we "tiptoe around" the issue of radical faith claims.
It seems obvious that the man that killed these soldiers in cold blood was doing so for religious reasons. Yes, there were political differences, but the differences were basically underwritten by this man's religious convictions. This view is not open to pluralistic views or values, because it views any "other" as "infidel". How can we tolerate such thinking and being in our society? or at least in our military?
When men/women pledge their allegience to the cause of our nation, they give up the right to digress from serving what leaders deem necessary for our nation's interests. Those that think that there is a higher or more primal loyalty do not need to be pledging their allegience.
Those that think that societies can live without police officiers are living in an a disconnect from reality or are in mental institutions. Crime happens and people get hurt, should we look the other way? Should we tolerate such things, or worse, should we dissolve the "force" of the police officier because we think the police officier is the "problem"? Of course not!
Our military do similar things in the larger context of "world affairs". Whenever nations rise up against another, should we looke the other way? Should we dissolve the military of any "force" because they are the problem? Or should we evaluate our values and determine whether this is a cause that justifies our nation's interest and the interest of a "free world"?
The world does not change in this regard. We will always have need for law to bring order and the police and military are the enforcers of what is "right" in the "free world" under law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
