Sovereignty and the Global

Today's world leave one with a quandary about what to do and how to thnk in "global ways". Doesn't globalism dissolve identficaton and personal boundaries? These are questions about Sovereignty.

Sovereignty is about boundaries, and the "rule of law". Laws describe crime and courts convict those that haven't respected the boundaries that protect the social order. Countries respect another country's right to differ, as we allow diplomatic immunity to those that might trangress one nation's laws, that aren't especially important in another country.

I think about Hirshi Ayan Ali, who has escaped Somalia and an arranged marriage, to find herself in the Netherlands getting an education and a sear on Parliament. When it was finally found ou that her citizenship was based on deception, then the Dutch had to investigate the right of her citizenship. In the end, she was allowed citizenship on the basis that her deception was not considered deception in Somalia! Hirshi's understanding when she filled out the form for citizenship was interpreted by her reference point, Somalian tradition.

It has just been pointed out that when an artificial identity is imposed, without the person coming to terms with their identity themselves, that there is resistance. Such a case could be made with the European Union and how difficult it was in the first place to bring about a unity, to see countries revert back to their identifying natonalities!!!

One wonders what this might mean in global affairs that have to do with business interests, national security and individual rights. Corporations now have rights to personhood, which might mean that individuals aren't considered any more a person, than a corporation....national security is of interest if one believes that nation states should and do have various interests to protect....but that isn't the frame in today's post-modern culture, where anything and everything s up for grabs.

I believe that there must be a prioritizingof values, before one can make a choice about what to do in a particular situation. Human rights is a universal, but is the United Nations to supercede the nation-state and its right to self-defense? Self-defense is a natural right! And must be protected...if we want to maintain civilization itself! Otherwise, groups of all kinds make for a cloudy future for defense of liberty, as equality will be imposed, not sought as a natural right by individuals!!!

9-11, a Call for Help! And Is Government the Answer?

Today, is the 10th anniversary of our nation's face to face encounter with terrorism. It was a human Tragedy, but it was also an act of War! How do we see it today, and how will it affect our views in the future? These are questions I'm sure many have on their minds and hearts today!

Terror is an act that is taken against another's Sovereignty. Sovereignty has to do with the right to rule. And the right to rule has to do with government. Our nation values self-government as our ideal, as it protects the values of liberty and conscience. This is the reason why we value human rights, as an ideal.

Humans form societies, and our Founding Fathers created our country to be founded on a basic understanding of "self government". The individual was to rule, not be ruled or dominated by another. Our government was the first to undermine the 'Divine Right of Kings", where government's officials were "granted the right" or "annointed" to rule by "God". Our nation was formed by men that used higher education and human reason to form the rules, or laws that were to govern society. These laws protected individual rights. Reason was unique in man and was the foundation of "conscience".

Today, on the 10th anniversary of 9-11, do we see the need for more government, or less, than our Founders understood to be legitimate? How much is too much, when our nation looks toward a future? Is the future to be determined by government officials, or individual citizens? Are we to be "a people", or a government? Civic responsibility is the responsibility of all of us in a free and open society. "The people" should have the right to their own sovereignty, otherwise, governemnt will not seek legitamacy. The consent of the governed is the only way to protect against intrusive and invasive corruptions of power!

Groups and "Others"...

I find it disturbingly paradoxical to talk about  "the other"," the Other" or "Othering". Why?


Groups form their identities by various distinctives. These are cultural differences, which define values. The problem comes when values conflict with another "group", which they inevitably will. Focusing on these differences and using them as forms of "entitlement" does not help those of a minority race to "overcome". But, it enables an entitlement mentality. Ethnic identities are a biological fact, but we don't have to promote the idea that their social status deserves special treatment! This is a nonesstialist position.

I read recently where the Academy has gone from "the other" to "the Other" to "Othering". It seems to me that "the other" is a particular individual that is different from you. "The Other" is another group, whether  defined by differences of interest or values, or a "people group", while "othering" is an action taken toward "the other", and/or "The Other". Discrimination is about distinguishing, while "othering" is looking at commonalities. Both are useful, but must be understood within the proper "frame.

Groups are dangerous to individuation, as they do pressure individuals to conform to certain standards, or values. While this is good for children, it can be deadly for adults. Deindividuation has illustrated how group behavior all too easily becomes "herd mentality" and "mob behavior". Mobs create unrest and undermine the ability to think critically for oneself. It is peer pressure, plain and simple. Such "group think" is the group's "protection", security or defense against "foreign bodies" and is useful to maintain their survival. But, "group think" can also provide a cover for oppressive government or abusive dictators to defend their "territory". In these cases, propaganda can be used to manipulate and marginalize those that ask questions, or think "outside the box". Social conformity, in these cases, create a society where oppression rules over creativity, and individuation.

An identity is formed by  one's values, which must be underwritten by liberty, not paternalistic government, that "tells you what those values MUST be", in areas that really do not make a difference in societal flourishing. Otherwise, the individual is left without the ability to choose his vocation, or compete for a particular job. Americans have valued this form of individual liberty. While it is true that not everyone has the same capacity to perform every job, it is also true that there is a wide variety of jobs or interests that should be open to the individual in a free society.

In America, the States determine many social norms or values, such as abortion, gay marriage, legal ages for marriage, and other such "standards". These "standards" are the "cultural norm" for a particular local culture. But, at the national level, diplomacy is always negotiation of differences between or among different interests, cultural values, or standards of behavior. And these are determined by international law. It does become problematic when certain cultures do not allow liberty of conscience to the individual, as to religious conviction/claims. These cultures have been given "special priviledge" or exception, to the Universal Human Rights Declaration, which is disturbing to the nonessentialist. The West has paid a high costs in tolerating "intolerance".

Both postmodernity and multiculturalism are anti-thetical to rationality. Rationality is the only way or means of finding a place for "law and order". Otherwise, laws will be conflicting and confusing, because they will defend a particular culture, while discriminating against other cultures....or individual values.. An exclusivist culture defends a particular Tradition, while an individualist defends biological propensity/genetic identity. It is probably that both social conditioning AND genetic identity make for the uniqueness of individuals across the globe. And reason, not tradition, is the only way to understand those differences.

I am only beginning to think through these issues, so I can form my own opinion, and not be led by a paternalistic "authority", that limits my ability to come to my own conclusions.

Funny How Christians "Use" Language

We all use language to communicate. But, though many of us can use "words", we do not know how to communicate. What is Communication?

Communication means that one understands a context and the history that affects "meaning". This is how the "Christian" uses language "to fix" or "redeem" (this is their theoogical term) the world. Such language is useful to get "believers to agree" and co-operate "with God's purposes, as Goe's purposes are assumed to be "about the world". But, is it just manipulation of language for certain purposes? When in reality, what is desired is certain behavior for certain outcomes or goals of personal interests or concern to leadership? These goals are defined within contexts, themselves.

Groups like to scapegoat. The Christian scapegoats "God", all groups think that "justice" is "their view" in a particular context and God 'is on their side". This is how the Church theologized "Christ" as the unifier of the world. Christ was scapegoated for one group's sins against another group of people. Group reality is not 'human development", but one identification factor to a particlar indivdiual.

In reality, groups are formed and framed by social, legal, moral, and interests factors. These factors support individuals and their view of themself and "life". Groups can be "causes" or "interests", or "pursuits" or "goals". But, all  formal groups are framed with certain unifying by-laws, written or un-written.

Communication between groups can be hard because interests, views, and commitments vary. And some of a group's assumptions about 'reality" are not readily understood. This is when diplomatic efforts are made to make for peaceful resolution. Resolutions are "peace treaties". Apart from negotiation, there is no "justice", and wars are made from such offenses/differences of values.

 The West believes that the individual has a right to representation and trial by jury. One is not guilty until proven innocent. These protections allow the individual liberty of conscience, as to values and commitments. "Justice", in this regard, has to do with rights. And rights are what make for the "human"/humane environment of the West. The individual is not required to submit to speicifications about their life and its commitments.  Group interests are to be negotiated with private individuals.

Christians like to define their group on the "language of theology", instead of understanding that Christianity itself is fraught with differences that are based on "language". What does "sin" mean? The definition will depend on how one understands "salvation", the Church, human/individual development, ulitmate purposes, practical realities, and contexts. This is where the "universalization of language" can be "defeating" to bringing "justice", because people understand terms differently. And such complexity makes it hard to bridge the communication gap.

People live within their understandings of the world. In the West, we believe that equality under law, protects the indivdual from hierarchal forms of co-ercion, but , religious groups understand that hierarchy 'honors God". Therefore, the individual is diminished and devalued, "in the light of God". During the Roman Empire Ceasars (or leaders over the government) were considered to be "gods". Christians were first thought to be atheists in this climate, because they resisted "earthly power". So, whether the Christian thinks that earthly government or 'spiritual governmant has primacy, it interferes with a universal view on government, as to "faith".

"Self-respect" and personal commitments are not values to many religious communities, because the individual is only 'a part" of the "whole" and the whole is more valuable. This view is a communal or societal view.  Paul said this in his analogy of the Body of Christ and interdependence. While interdependence is a fact of life, dependence is when hierarchal views are held and diminish the indivdiual within the corporate. This is 'injustice", because "the heads" or the corporation pre-determine without considering the "parts" that are needed to carry out their "plans". Such behavior disrespects/dishonors the individuals, who are to be a part of the team, for each team member must be aware to the specifics of the "goal" and know the part they play to be able to commit and carry out the plan. And sometimes the member may not value the goal, and this is when the member is free to consider other options and the "heads" can find a replacement.

It is interesting that individuals all have an innate sense of justice, because we all want to be valued and respected, unless there has been an environment that did not develop proper boundaries in the child.. Self-respect is the first and foremost foundation of coming to terms in 'just relationships. Otherwise, "self" is seen as "selfishness", and run over by those that cease to understand their own selfishness! Self-interest is the basis of our capitalistic system, and "self-interests" supports the view of the Christian or the naturalists. Men are viewed as "fallen" or "fighting for survival".  "Fallen" and Survival" also has many definitions, such definitions make for "life". How are we to understand 'life"?

The Christian likes to spiritualize terms, such as "life". Life is about "God:", instead of man. But, when these terms are united, the reality of "the god/man", we have a man fully developed. The Christian would term it 'in God's image". Such human development does not have to be "spiritual", as man is a physical entity. His brain responds to stimuli and interprets such stimuli in cerain ways. This is why communication is complex, because man's mind is different from his brain.

Minds can be "formed" by certain social conditioning. Such is the Christian's attempt to "condition" through "moral education". But, usually, the Church has certain "goals" that are limiting the definition of such "education of character", which is "Jesus" life, as revealed in Scriptures.  Such a life was not respected, honored, or considered as in our Western concept of "justice". Should the West continue to promote such "education", as Christian character? Or should the Church cease in trying to use "language" to get humans to agree to "denying self-interest"? Should individuals allow the Chruch to abuse them under a hierarchal view of power? Is the Church justified in "making disciples", when the Church acts unjustly, according to our Constitutonal governent? Is the Church above the law, because "God is above the law"? Or is justice defined by the law, whether or not one uses The Church or God to 'sanction' or 'make it holy?

Since men are "fallen" or prone to compete for survival, how should we view "justice" in the Church? Justice in the Church is no more or less than justice in our Constitutional government, as without it, we do disservice to man  (made in God's image,). Man made in "God" image" is not one form, but many forms, because beauty allows for diversity.

Moral Realism and Language Games

Moral realism is grounded in the real world of "the political". What is claimed to be "moral" cannot be grasped without language. And language becomes the problem of diversity. Diversity of interests make for our public climate of "debate" about what "should" claim universal right to make the "goals" for societal benefit. So, what can be "the moral", if there are diverse ways of expressing the "moral"? The academic disciplines seek to claim the "moral" for their own purposes. But, all of these claims should be limited by our Constitutional government! We cannot allow the "universal" to undermine the personal, nor our nation-state.

Moral realism is based on Constitutional government in the poltical realm, where "the rule of law is King", not Dictators, Monarchs, Chiefs, Leaders, or Presidents! The rule of law makes definitions about nations and their values. Without such a government, the individual serves some other ends, than being an "end in himself"! This is the "rub" for us in the West, today. The liberal want to liberalize what cannot be liberalized without undermining the very basis of our protections, the rule of law!

Academic freedom is one of our highest values because we do not believe that any form of knowledge has a right to primacy over others. In other words, the political claim to knowledge should not have more power over other areas of knowledge in the Academy. Otherwise, we limit other perspectives, and make unwise or ungrounded decisions based on values that might limit the wider range of knowledge. I think such has happened with the natural sciences and economics. These have become politicized. And the religious claims to knowlege have underwritten these claims as absolute! Therefore, the environment, and the poor are the driving force behind political power. Political power that is driven for speicific goals, undermines the very basis of our Constitutional government. Politics then, become a war to maintain the power to control "language" or the attempt to defeat such "language" and expand the information base, so the "common" will beocme empowered. The Tea Party movement seeks to bring accountability to government in such a way.

Our country values liberty, as justice, because we believe that individuals must have the right to their life and property. These are negative rights, as government does not seek to impose these rights, but does defend them if they are undermined. We do not value those that make "special claims" about political power. Power is about personal ownership of one's life, Government must  be limited, not expanded. Otherwise, we limit the personal to the "common" and it undermines liberty as a value for a "universal value" of some other definition, i.e. the definition of the "empowered class".. Personal choice is based on personal values, not universal ones. Universal values, might limit personal ones, which undermine our understanding of the "moral" of a Constitutional government.

Today, we are challenged as to our diversity and the laws that protect diversity. Shairia law claims a "right" to religious tolerance in our society, that undermines our cultural values of equality and liberty of conscience. And the illegal immigrant claims "universal right" under the "Declaration of Human Rights". Is the "universal" to undermine the law of the nation state?  Are we to tolerate what undermines our very survival? Our laws protect our survival, because they set limitations, while protecting liberty. We cannot undermine our Constitutional government and our citizens right to protection under those laws.

Shairia cannot be allowed unless we fail to make laws that protect from the abuses that we deem inhumane treatment to the child, or the unequal treatment of women. That would limit radical Muslims from infilterating our country.

As to the illegal immigrant that fails to meet our immigration policies. We need to enforce the law, and we need to think through what to do about the drug trafficking that undermines our society, while appealing to those crossing our borders. Those immigrants that come to our country to find economic liberty must be taught how to make thier own life in their own country. Those that are here legally should be part of the solution in encouraging change in their home society. This way, our country, and theirs benefit. But, we cannot afford to promote nation-building, when other countries do not do their part.

Humane behavior needn't undermine our national interests. But, it should limit the resources we give to others. We cannot do something we cannot afford. We must be committed to viability at home, otherwise, we defeat ouselves in the proces of our "moral concern" for others. Such stipulations about our "investments" abroad must be studied. We can't have our country limited by environmental concerns, that undermine our own economic viability, while other countries are allowed that liberty.

Such issues as our natural environment, and "the poor" have been useful and used by the political class to further goals that subvert our national interests.

While scientists like to define the 'moral" on the principle of the natural, the political scientists like to view "the moral" on our constitutional government. So what is "moral"? That depends on one's interests and values. The liberal would uphold "natural selection", while the conservative believes in an equalization of power where all are created equal.

I read once where America is a country that was founded on pragmatism, and moral idealism! Our ideals allow liberty under law. Ordered liberty. And our pragmatic values should not be politicized to the extent that moral realism undermines another's right to describe things in another "language". Americans haven't valued "propaganda"!

"Moral Claims" About Human Rights, and The Poor

Human rights has a liberal agenda, but no less than "the poor". While "human rights" appeal to liberalizing "rights languagde" to "all people". "The poor" is specialized political language. Both appeal to different "kinds" of pre-dispositions toward "the human/humane". But, without discrimination of one kind or another, one can't make his own rational choice, but be a pawn to emotive identification factors!

While the liberal like universal terms, the conservative likes defined terms according to neurological research. The best way to "sell" globalized government is to sell each on its own "language tendency" based on emotion/sentiment that breeds identification and motivates to heroic action.

While the liberal humanitarian might like U.N. intervention, the conservative intellectual wouldn't see this as "justified" because one can't make any claims to anything, without defining, limiting, discriminating, as to what is allowed in the "real world"....not the idealized one, which is the nation-state. Our nation must defend its right, not bring about the universal Utopia that is so often sold to manipulate others. Human rights, or "the poor" are the terms of appeal to human sentiment to universalize what might be to the detriment of rational choice about one's life.

Identification has to be an alignment in/with the agenda or goal of a certain group. Emotion or sentimental visions, or hopes of "ideals" are the undermining of individual choice, and rights. Alturistic concern is a "group's norm" so that the social goal of equalizing the playing field is made.  This is what the "social gospel" proclaims. And it justifies its goals by the means of manipulating language to subvert "selfishness".

Moral claims are made under many guises and they mask demands of another's agenda, whether Church, State or a Dictatorial Leader. So, what is morality, except what one deems as one's own purposes, plans and goals in a free society under a Constitutional government. We must never give up our right to individual liberty!

What Is Moral?

There are many needs that are pressing upon our globe today, which ones will make the "cut" as the ultimate need? Moral sentiment usually drives what people claim are the moral imperatives. Such sentiment is one's personal desired outcomes. And these are driven by prioritizing personal values, even the "objective ones".

Humanists value human rights as a universal standard. These people have chosen to universalize Western cultural values. But, the United Nations has made exception to Islam, giving them the right to Islamic law. How can two conflicting values be held by an organization? Don't we have to make discriminations about what is of ultimate value and how do we do that?

Neuroscientists have argued that our brains determine much of what we desire and value. Is the brain determined by one's cultural experiences or is the brain innatedly endowed with certain desires?

Obviously, all humans have the need for sustenance. Physical needs are not choices of value, but are objective needs. Humanists would be driven to meet these needs as of foremost importance. But, what of emotional needs and attachments? Are these just as important?

In Maslow's hierarchy of needs, such needs are secondary to physical needs. And this is where we find America today, debating what is needed in our nation's budget. One politician claimed that we could not cut entitlement spending, as it was "immoral". And that there are some things that are moral imperatives. These moral imperatives are driven by moral sentiment. Emotion drives such "entitlement" speak. Whereas, our budget deficit cannot be ignored. This is a moral imperative driven by reason, not sentiment! Isn't this more important than particular situations that might call for intervention? Our nation's viability is at stake! But, what is to come of a budget, when elected officials can "walk out" of negotiating and perservering in a job they were elected to do?

Those that want to play on moral sentiment, play upon religious values and emotionally driven goals by appealing to the "Golden Rule". Those that get their desired outcomes are those that have planned on using such emotional appeal to sway the "common man" to to their bidding. And usually their bidding is not chosen "up front" in the full light of day, but driven by the need to control or manipulate the "mob" so social order can be maintained. Such "Systems" are totaltaliarian. They are driven by elites for the "common good", but not the personal good of those under them. "Personal" ceases to have meaning or value, because it is independent of "theWhole", which is more valued than the "Parts".

Scientists value the physical universe. Its resources are of ultimate concern. But, physcial resources must be prioritized as to ultimate value, don't they? And what of the conflicting ways in which to approach limited resources and how to use them and create alternatives that might benefit "the Whole"? Who determines what policy will be made? And what outcomes will be of ultimate value or concern? Are Americans allowed to drill for oil, as other countries? Are we going to be allowed to drill for oil irregardless of environmental concerns for wildlife? Is the individual human of more value than other life forms? Or are all life forms or equal value?

If one values the nation-state, then there are priorities that must come first, irregadless of sentiment. Our nation's security is at stake, if we cannot maintain viability! Who will be at the helm of power then? Will we dissolve the nation-state for good, for a "common government"? Hasn't experience taught us that Bigger Government leads to more corruption because of an inability to make accountable such a "system"? Wasn't our Constitution even debated in our early years, because of such a belief? How then, can we think that liberalizing the world will bring about a "better way of life" for all? How do we know? What has history taught us?

My husband was expressing his desire for a certain endeavor that he felt would not be appreciated, acknowledged or valued by others. I encouraged him to attain his goal, irrespective of anything else, as such a desire was a matter of integrity and his own "honor and sense of being true to himself". Such "self-affirming" choice could not be made in a totalitarian system, because such "self affirming" ways of thinking and being in the world would be considered "selfish" , by those that want him to do "their bidding". But, I think such "selfishness" is a point of character. "Character" must be defined within the context of the "self", for there to be a "grounded self". Character that is evaluated by others might be applauded or dissapproved based on some other value, outside of "principled character". One might not value what he chooses, but they must applaud his commitment to it, IF they value a liberal democracy and human rights.

It seems that what is "moral" has been a useful term for many reasons. An ultimate and important value  is the individual's right to exist and choose his own way of life, which is what a Democracy allows, and our Republic demands its Representatives uphold those values in it legislative powers!

Which Is It? Balancing Power or Abuse of Power

What is the difference in the balance or power or abuse of power?

The balancing of power is a horozonal view based upon separate functions, but equal distribution of power. Balncing power means that the separate branches of government are protected from conflicts of interest. Jefferson moved the Supreme Court from the Capitol building for this very reason. Balncing power is about democracy, and human rights, while abuse of power doesn't maintain that power is equally distributed. Power just is. And  unchecked power, or power without any limits makes for the "abuse of power".

Abuse of power is about hierarchal view of organizational structuring of society, or government. Such is the  Republican form of government that America was founded upon. The principle of leadership, that is
representative. We are a government "by and for the people".

Power is about money, position, influence, information, and knowledge. And such aspects of power are useful to protect the individual from those that might be unscrupulous in their use of power. Power can be represented by groups or an indivdual. But, groups that have collective influence, inside information and money, are the foudations of corrupt government. Corrupt government do not represent "the people", but themselves, in insider trading, protecting each other's backs and outright pay-offs and bribery.

In America, we have laws that protect "the little guy" from such corruption. Our very form of government is the "rule of law". We are  "a people" that is ruled by law and not a King/Divine. And the law is equally binding on every individual. It is what protects all of our interests, when we value "the rule of law" and its protections, because the law is to balance power and prevent "abuse of power".

Is the Necessary Element to Good Government Applicable to "God" and Parenting?

In ethics there is a question that is posed about whether something is moral just because God commands it, or because it is objectively moral, irrespective of "God". This is called the "Euthyphro dilemma". Those that believe that "God" is somehow "above the law" are subverting "good judgment. These believe that whatever God demands is a necessary "evil" for his ultimate purposes.

The Divine Command Theory is nothing less than authoritarian governance. It is a demand to obey, without question, because "faith" sanctions such obedience and piety demands it. But is authoritarian government the best form of government? Not unless, one believes that a dictator is the best leader.

Christians will argue that humans cannot see or know the best because they are limited. God is interested in "holiness" or "character", which means, in effect, that one isn't to take ownership of thier own life, but submit in their actions and attitude to whatever "life has divied out", without question, as this is "God's will in Christ Jesus concerning you". Suffering is a means to get the "dross" out of one's life. It is a means to alleviate our lives of our "idols".

Scripture teaches that God is a Father. Does a good father dictate and demand? Or does a father seek to understand, encourage, support, and help the child?

Human rights suggests that individuals are deemed significant and of value in America. We are not a collective society. We believe that good government is limited, and does not intrude into the private lives of its citizens. Americans believe in private property. As James Madison said, ""As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."

-- James Madison, National Gazette essay, March 27, 1792

Good government applies to "God" as well as parenting. Therefore, what is moral is objective, not subject to arbitrary dictates of a "god",  parent or dictator.

"Equality Under Law"

Americans value equality, but not at the expense of liberty, as without liberty, there is NO equality. Liberty values the right to "offend" because we affirm freedom of speech and the press. There should be no "political correct" viewpoint, unless we want to support a politically empowered ruling class. A "political correct" viewpoint is propaganda, nothing less and is used to undermine liberty to "form" society.

Government is to protect our liberties, IF we are "equal before the law"! What has become defined as "equal under law" is defined on economic justice, and not equal opportunity. Economic justice distributes according to the "standard" that the ruling class deems "sufficient", "moral", "right" or "just". Economic justice attempts to build society through de-motivation of incentive. Humans are to be "moral" in their limiting themselves for the "sake of others". This becomes insane because it enables one class, at the expense of the other class. It is "class warfare" and it is done, so that reactions will "cause" a "crack-down" on society for "a restored order". The result will be 'ordered government" at the expense of human rights, value and liberty, itself.

Religion is also not to be absolutized in its "way of thinking". Religious wars and religious intolerance has been the source of human sacrifice and also a limitation on free speech. Religion defines itself by doctrines of "God". And God has "ruled" over humans in conforming them to religious understanding.

Both absolute government or absolute religion will undermine human liberty and our Constitutional government. America must understand itself as diverse, humane, and just about "equality under law". We are a people who believe in "ordered liberty"!

Does the Nation State Have Rights?

Much has been written about "colonialism',"empire", imperialism, Statism, and the nation-state's status in general. Most of these labels have a certain view of universiality about "humanity" and rights. But, what is good about the nation-state?

The nation-state has defined boundaries, where people can create their societies within their governmental form/frame. The nation-state protects its citizens, in our free and open society by its laws. Citizens have a right to appeal, as the individual is respected in his own right.

Globalist and globalism is an agenda that pushes negative labels on America, as a nation-state. And these labels are really to impugn America's reputation so that globalists agenda can broaden their impact and appeal. And the globalists use religion just as the Statist do.

Globalism is really about commerce and trade. Trade and commerce have happened for eons of time, because people always want to promote economic progress in their own country. But, those nations that colonized other countries are viewed as arrogantly asserting their power and right over another country. And this is the height of arrogance to those that are committed to the human rights cause, or environmental causes.

These global "causes" are not the only "causes" in the world, but to those that are so committed, it seems so. Otherwise, they would not be doing what they are doing. And more power to them!

The nation-state does have interests, and these interests are not wrong, because interests help the nation to survive, as long as corporate power do not grab the reigns of power to subvert Congress' right/duty to representation.

I think the ideals of our nation-state from the Founding are ideals worth fighting for. And these ideals are individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Some have tried to "sell" the centralized beauracracy as an evil in and of itself. While I will never think that beauracracy is the best way of government's functioning, I do believe that our nation has a right to exist in the midst of other nations.

Federalists argue that without the distribution of power at the State level, then we have erred according to Constitutional standards. And these think that the State should not have a standing Army or have any investment in foreign policy. These believe that the Army's ideal of liberty is used to subvert other governments, for political/economic purposes. As stated before, political and economic purposes are the life blood of the nation/state.

A similar usefulness for religion is to get people "on board" voluntarily and to agree, so agendas by leadership can be carried out with little resistance. One must wonder what principle leaders such as these adhere to. Is it the principle of power?

The Distinctions MUST Remain Clear

I was doing some reading on inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence. This is what I found under my Google search and Answers.com:

Some philosophers and political scientists make a distinction between natural rights and legal rights.
Legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature (or unenumerated but implied from enumerated rights), and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs.
In contrast, natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative.
Blurring the lines between natural and legal rights, U.S. statesman James Madison believed that some rights, such as trial by jury, are social rights, arising neither from natural law nor from positive law but from the social contract from which a government derives its authority.[1]

The social contract is where the government over a particular person derives it power or authority. Americans understand that government is granted power by the person's consent. We are a nation that is ruled by laws that protect individual liberties, which are defined by our Bill of Rights.

Some have thought that this does disservice to international concerns, such as human rights. This is not necessarily so, as specified laws protect a particular nation-state, providing its definitions of custom, norms and "morals".

America has protected itself by understanding the dangers of uniting political and religious agenda. Jefferson's separation of Church and State was to prevent such authoritarial ideology. Jefferson believed in inalienable rights, that were based on natural rights, while Madision understood that the social contract was to be upheld by the rights of citizens within a particular nation state.

Distinctions about these two issues must remain clear, otherwise, we dissolve boundaries of civil rights, and social norm and custom which help to create identification to the people who live within a country's borders.

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.

The Necessity of Protecting Civil Liberty

Civil liberty was borne on the heels of oppression of a certain sex, or ethnicity. This is what has prompted civil rights and minority rights.

Although I believe in civil liberties, because free societies are what allow for differences, which is humane, I don't think that the best way to promote civil liberties is by creating a law to protect such a right. Laws define what society maintains as a 'standard" or a "norm". Norms, by definition, discriminate. But, norms also protect society from disruption and instability.

Humans have the right to be different in their convictions and values, because humans should be self-governing. The "self" is what monitors and maintains the individual's values structure. Society must allow for such "liberty", but, not at the costs of stability.

In our country, we have recourse for our grievances. We can petition, protest, and litigate. These rights protect the value of civil liberty which maintains a humane environment for human flourishing. Certainly, we do not want to sanction a STATE or RELIGIOUS mandated system where human values are pre-determined without allowing individuals the right to choose. Choice furthers human flourishing by enabling the individual to evaluate, discriminate and come to terms with their own personal value system.

Civil liberty is about protecting the right of individual choice and individual values.

What Does a Good Citizen Do?

What does a good citizen do? That question could be answered in various ways, depending on how one understand the individual and society.

A good citizen is defined by individuals based on certain values they hold. Do they hold liberty as the ultimate social value or is society itself of ultimate value and concern. The latter are more socialistic in thier view politically.

The political ideal for the socialist is equality of property versus an elitist view that supports capital and investments and individual initiative.

Religion has been useful to serve the ends of socialist's agendas. But religion itself is a question of value. Does one believe that the world was "caused"? Is God personal or an abstraction? Should someone act in faith without evidence? Or should one base their decisions on reason alone?

Is society the basis of values, or is there a moral theist view about society?

Are individual's free, or determined and how hard is the determination? What determines an individual, genetics, or environment? Can someone be held accountable to actions that are beyond his control because of a genetic predisposition or environmental conditioning? What is justice, then?

Is justice or morality relative, or are they absolute? Multiculturalism would uphold a relativistic view, but international law, human rights activists, and the Founding Fathers believed that all people were created with certain inalienable rights, the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Is happiness the only ultimate value, or are there a "world of values" in a pluralistic view?

Where people answer these questions will determine their commitments and behavior in certain situations.

Humans are thinkers, whether they think so or not. They are always being influenced by the things they read, hear or see. And in free societies, we allow most any information to be sorted by the individual's free determination. But, the value question comes in, as to what sort of information is productive? Should there be an evaluation of what is productive based on what society wants the outcome to be? And organist view of society would believe so, as would the socialist and moral theist.

But, if one thinks of society as a social contract, one will come to different conclusions than one who thinks of society as an organism, itself. The individual will be of uptmost importance because he, the individual cannot be dissolved into his function in society alone. He is a human being, who has his own desires, purposes and goals, which should never be stolen.

A social contract view of society affirms individuals making an agreement about their affliation with society in a certain culture. This is what makes for liberty, in regards to choices about one's life commitments, and values. "Big Brother' does not determine what one should or should not to in the speicific choices of vocation or mate selection. And this is what has made America great because the individual is motivated by his own goals, for his own life. He owns his life, no one owns it for
Life cannot be lived fully without the freedom to choose and be in the world as one comes to understand the world. And as one understands that many in the world do not have the choice or right of individuality, and live in fear of torture or torment from government or religion, one comes to value the American ideals of individuality and liberty.

Nation-States, Values and Universiality

Today's need to look for the universal, so that our fractured state of affairs might be mended, is all important, I believe. Is there a universal? Are there unversal values?

In a scientific age, where men do not accept religion at face value, one must use the "picture" of man as an evolutionary being, and yet, hold to some aspect of "higher value", so that man is prized above the natural realm. Why would this be important?

Humans must not be equivolized to "matter alone". Otherwise, science will treat man, as just matter. There is no ethical or moral obligation to deter science from de-meaning those "outside of the power structures".

Today's climate of globalism has led many to affirm multi-culturalism without critical analysis. These have sought to understand man within context, without understanding man, himself. Is the "man" apart from culture?

Yes, man is a rational being, that acts in response to stimuli,and has certain basic needs to develop potential. But, affirming multiculturalism is a different matter.

Multiculturalism holds no values as universal, because values are contextually understood. While this may be true within the realm of religious values, it is not true within the realm of science, or universiality.

Universiality are the basics that our nation upholds; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Each citizen is granted these inalienable rights. These rights are the basis of human rights and our government's desire to see that other nations comply with these universal principles.

Today's globalism that affirms such multiculturalism and relativism as The United Nations affirms all nations as equal. Lybia is an equal to America, in fact, because of America's "discriminaton" of certain nations, America suffers persecution under the label of "Empire".

This is an absurd view, because American ideals value individual liberties and independent thinking, unlike nations that condone monarchies, theocracies, or dictatorships.

What is of ulitmate value? American ideals, which uphold human rights, but within the bounds of law.

The Discrimination of Cinderella

A few months ago, I wrote about Cinderella. Cinderella's story is a classic story of discrimination.

Cinderella not only had natural right but a civil right to be a part of her step-family, but was excluded and given the common duties of a maid.

When the time came for the King's ball, she felt sure that this time would include her as an equal. And her expectation and hope and work to ready herself was met with disapproval by her step-sisters and step-mother. Her legal family had not given her legal rights!

Fortunately, for Americans, we are granted rights under law, that protect us from discrimination. Those that seek to upsurp another's right to be an equal are doomed to be convicted of discrimination. Cinderella had no civil rights, so she had to resort to depending on a "fairy godmother". Hers was an unfortunate state of affairs.

But, as Disney's fairy tales all end with 'happily ever afters", Cinderella ends us gaining not just her legal and moral rights, but also the whole kingdom. She becomes the Prince's bride and all ends justly.

This is similar to what Christians believe. They believe that the supernatural will intervene to make things right or just. And if not in this life, then justice will be measured out in the after-life. This is not rational. And our Founders knew that without civil liberties, then one would be doomed to live their life in servitude, as they had under Britian with the "tea tax".

Civil rights were to protect natural rights because government should not 'take life" in any way, shape or form. We are a People, because of our consent to be governed in liberty under civil law.

Projection As a Source of Psychological Survival and Goal /Value Formation

Heroes are the leaders that represent our values. Those who represent these values are prone to gain a following, even though this may not be their intent. And those that represent our values in a Representative Republic are valued for thier defense of our ideals of life and liberty.

Our representative Republic was formed to create a more 'perfect union', where individuals could attain the "right to life". The right to life is a basic need in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, as without the basics of physical and emotional sustenance, there will be no 'goal setting" or reaching human potential.

Although the "right to life' is a basic need, our Founders understood that without liberty, life would not be valued. Liberty is of primary importance to uphold human value, because without it, an individual is a product, a number, or a project. Liberty must be first for life to survive fully and abundantly to reach its full potential. No one has the right to suggest how another human being should live their life. Life is valued not because of how one behaves within the boundary of law, or what job one has, but because life is a value in itself. And these liberties are what are protected by the Constitution.

Life and liberty will always breed "bones of contention" between the values of the consevative and liberal, and how these views are held in social and fiscal areas of policy making. None of us will agree on every single issue. And this is as it should be in a free society, where we are free to disagree, discuss, dissent, and petition our Representatives for a "more perfect union".

The "pursuit of happiness" is allowing liberty of conscience. No one should judge another in how they choose to live thier life, within the boundary of law. Persuasion can be useful for those that feel so constrained to make a difference in others lives for change. But, authoritarianism in any form is anathema to a free society. We elect our leaders to represent our interests And our representatives in Congress are responsible for maintaining a culture for/of peace, as this is what the 'rule of law' should do; bring peaceful resolution. I do not believe that we should have a positive view of the law, but a negative view, because of the primary value of liberty of conscience.

We value our laws as these are what make for "our perfect union". And this is the ethical "ideal" of human value in life and liberty.

Value as a Means of Expressing the Incarnation

In thinking about how Barbu understood the integrative and disintegrative values in a democracy and how they have to be maintained "in tension", I think that the Quadralateral is a good way to analyze these values and how they are incarnated in one's life.

Scripture is a means for moral and religious value but I would think that Scripture being a defining element of the political realm would be limiting freedom of conscience, or aesthetic value. Ethics in this regard would be an undermining value to religious or moral tradition's understanding of value.

Tradition also upholds moral values, as it has been defined by the Church (or other religious authority), but Tradition also maintains religious value in social norms. Again, without reason, tradition runs rough-shod over cultural adaptation and change in regards to ethics.

Experience underlines how the individual formulates "his world" within a religious (or anti-religious), and political realm. Experience cannot be formed "outside of itself" without limiting individuality. Man's reason is useful to analyze, categorize and determine his course. So, experience does not uphold tradition or religion, as the "form" must be individually understood and embraced. But, experience does uphold aesthetic value, leaving room for individual's to "find their place" in this world. This is the ethic of human rights and personal identity.

Reason is used to understand, evaluate, and formulate, which is the scientific value of modernity. Although fragmentation has occurred within modern society because of science and rationality, isn't freedom about that very fragmentation? And isn't freedom what life is about?

Life without justice (rights) is a life that is defined by "outside sources" of religion and tradition. And this is not what modern democracies uphold or value.

And this is why our democratic Representative Republic is of ultimate value to me!


Reason upholds

The Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court

I heard today that the Supreme Court will be considering how our Bill of Rights will support our individual liberties, and how the State and Nation will define the boundaries of these rights.

They are also considering the 2nd Amendment. The right to bear arms.

Religious freedom has been important in our nation's history. But, where do ethical violations over-ride religious freedom? Relgious freedom should never allow abuse of a citizen 'under law, as doing so would subvert justice. The individual is of primary importance, when it comes to institutions that prey upon individual liberties.

One wonders what the Supreme Court will decide. Will it be in favor of religious liberty in regards to Church, or individual protection? I think individual protection is of utmost importance to the furthering of our society's values of "the rule of law", because otherwise, the State supports the Church in circumventing one of the gurantees of the Constitution, religious conscience. Whatever the Court decides, it will set the standard for future "rights", whether these be defined by individual conscience or group freedom.

I think of the situation of the young Muslim, turned Christian, who situated herself with an evangelical family and did not want to go back to her family of origin for fear of reprisal. Her family appealed the Court's decision. What will result in similar cases? Will we allow Sharia to have protection over individual rights, just like the U. N. did on the universal human rights declaration?

It will be an interesting debate, which I hope will be covered by some of the news sources, as it is being debated. That would be interesting.