Just Thinking About....Torture

On Richard Beck's blog site, he is talking about tortue. Is torture right or wrong, and how do we understand our position?

Just recently it has been discussed whether the Bush adminstration should be held accountable to the torture of suspected criminals. The CIA was absolved, but certain lawyers who represented the Bush adminstration may be held accountable to providing a legal means to torture these suspects.

Again, the issue of sovereignty and law, is the "problem". Is our country a sovereign over its interests where it concerns national security? Or is universal human rights as defended by international interests of more importance? Where do self interests protect freedoms, and where do they deter international "peace"? Where do ignoring rights of individual suspects undermine human rights? And where does America have a right to defend its security and help the world defend freedom abroad, while sometimes furthering injustice in specific situations? This is certainly an imperfect and complex world.

Obama has released certain CIA tactics or torture, disregarding CIA concerns of releasing this "classifed" information. Obama is making a heroic attempt at internationalizing our coutnry.

But, what happens to the "law" if there is no balance of power? If Obama suceeds in prosecuting those who differ with him in interpreting the law, while keeping the "other voices' silent in the Congress and the media, suppressing information to the people. America will be changed without most of us even being aware!

I have written about my concerns of the U.N. before on this blog site. There is an attempt to give developing nations more of a voice. But, if these countries are barbaric in their understanding of government, then at what costs will our world pay? Those who think in terms of tribes, and people groups have not developed the individual's identity so that education and the market, and the econcomies can become what America's has been. Those who think in tribalistic ways are loyal to religious conviction. And when religious conviction is understood to be involved in the political realm, then, the world will be "at war" because politicized religion is a danger, as history has often illustrated!

I am afraid that just as in any organizational structure, there have to be those that are "foot soldiers" to carry out the vision or plan of the adminstration or leadership. If the world is one big organization, and everyone is to have equal opportunity, then who are the "foot soldiers" (nations that are to be the "underdogs")? And how is leadership to be decided upon and how are the laws against neopotism to be upheld? And how is leadership to be accountable? ETC. There are many kinks in the garment without us understanding the garments "wash and wear" directions. What if the garment "shrinks", or "becomes stretched beyond fitting for its purpose"? These are real economic, political, governmental, leadership questions.

Hopefully, most of us will not live in a tortuous situation without recourse, or resolution, while the ship is sailing on open waters, with little or no rudder and no map in view!

Today's Sermon and the Sociological

Today, I was researching sociological terms such as functionalism, neo-functionalism, conflict theory and intereactionism...Although I am just beginning to skim the surface of this knowledge base, it did bring much to light in my understanding and in my coming to terms with how I want to understand or approach ethics...

This morning my pastor's sermon was on stewardship. Stewardship is more than just tithing and coming to Church on Sundays. He did not formally use, but was using Romans 12:1, presenting one's body as a living sacrifice...stewardship is using one's gifting for "god's service" and seeing all of life as given and gifted by God, who is deemed to be worthy to recieve our offering of "life".

While I do not have anything against his message generally, I have written that stewardship can be an inverted greed, if one approaches one's "needs" and "grabs" what one can get. One wants to "save", so one consumes. Every virtue can become a vice. My pastor did reference boundary maintenance as one aspect of stewardship. This was a good balance of judgment in community.

Sociology is the study of social institutions and how they should work or function. Functionalism sees roles and functions as a necessary ingredient to proper order and maintanence to the structure. Religion is useful to maintain these structures through social sanctions and control. Functionalism deals with the social structure, but dismisses the distinct aspect of the individual.

Conflict theory understands that social structures will have conflict because of different interests of individuals or groups. This is understood to be a necessary part of social change. While functionalism would label individual difference as rebellion, conflict theory and neo-functionalism would affirm the importance of the individual difference.

While conflict theory could be understood within a functionalist frame (at least it seems to me), interactionist theory is more dynamically understood or oriented. This understanding is affirming the individual differences as symbolic interactions, where meaning making is an important communication "tool" in coming to terms with negotiating the different understandings of the parties involved. These understandings are due to a difference in conceptualizations.

My pastor's sermon was understood as the Church's function of bringing meaning out of individual life, through stewardship of that life in reference to God. God is understood as the means to attain one's fulfillment and purpose in life. I think that God is a useful means to maintain social control and organzational structuring for the end goals of those who have undestood their role or function as leaders within the organizational structure of the Church. But, being called to stewardship, does not mean that one uses their gifts within the Church's structure, as this limits seeing all of life and the world as God's domain. Therefore, whatever your hand finds to do, do it with gratitude toward god.

Personally, I am growing weary of the terms and usefulness of god as a means or an end. God has given and has gifted, but this should not be understood as special or directly interventional. No, God works within the natural systems of the world in government (leaderhsip), but that does not mean that the system is free from corruption or evil. We are called, as my pastor said, to work to see the corruption and evil taken out of the system. We are to work against any corrupt or evil systems. This is what goodness is and does.

Emergent, Pre-Determined Purposes and "Truth"

In the science/religion debate, there are many ways of understanding the interface. Does science define religion, as science is the only truth? Or is religion to drive science, as science is the ultimate end? I believe both with reservation.

In the biological sciences, there is an attempt to describe organizational structure with "emergent properties". These scientific explainations to social constructs are problematic. The emergent properties just happen to be the place that those who have a creative bent, or disagree with the vision or are "pre-determined" of/by the organized structure find themselves. These "emergent" properties, while technically being "free" are "determined" by the "system". The "system" is the social structure that determines what the plan or vision will be and those who don't fit the system find themselves 'creatively' determined as "emergent". This means that the "emergents" are those who don't have a voice other than outside the mainstream, which is like the scapegoat in family systems....Is this a "just form of governing" others?

In utilatarian terms, the ends justify the means, so therefore, determining another's place within the structure is for the greater good of whatever purpose the organization deems fit. My question is; is this ethical or just? Would anyone want another determining their response, their future, and their purpose? I don't believe so. This is why applying the "truths" of biological science is misguided, if not downright evil.

In my husband's John Templeton course, he talks about social construction of reality through models. His students are taken through many ways of understanding that concept and when they get through, they understand that one must live by faith...not by reason alone!! This statement does not negate reason, but helps the student understand the limitations to reason. I find this especially fruitful in a religious institution, as it upholds "faith". And helps the student to understand that sicence does not hold ultimate truth....

Law and Order and the Purpose of the Modern State

It is so disturbing that Hamas is continuing to fire rockets at Israel. They are not a recognized state, and have caused much damage to Israeli/Palestinian relations.

Modern states maintain laws, which structure their governments and are markers of "order". This is a necessary structure-setting, as otherwise, there is not accountability and chaos happens. Hamas is not accountable to a state, as a state has not been granted to Palestine. Whether one agrees or not that this is unjust, the way in which Hamas is rectifying the situation is further breeding hostility, mistrust and hinders the cause of peace negotiations. This is where an international (transnational?) organization is necessary to bring order, but how does order look, when Palestine does not have any rights under law (as they are not a "state")?

I have come a long way in my thinking. Law is necessary for order, structure, which breeds an environment of flourishing for mankind. I am so thankful to leave in a free state!

Development of the Individual Within Society

When I used to believe that evangelical inductive study was "truth", I understood that "context was king". Context meant what the text meant within the culture, and language of the given frame of "orginal meaning". Of course the context was understood with different textual "helps". I understood that there was diversity within the Church and understood many of the arguments which brought about separation or understandings of difference.

But, in postmodernity, there is a need to understand the human as made in God's image. What is a human being and how is one developed? This is a question that is not new, but is one that faces the Church in uncerstanding how people have come to understand their faith. In academic terms, this way of approaching the understanding of religion, is the psychology of religion paradigm.

Not only is the person's context to be understood, as this is what gives a person identification, but also, the person's way of interpreting, which is hard to define in America's diverse environment. Families are not built around tradition necessarily, as in the "old country". So, how does the psychologist understand someone else's faith? Some have said that it is not just cultural influence, but actual brain science, as neurobiology has many "new understandings" of what makes man, "man".

Experience is the everyday encounters with everything from what one reads, hears, but what one encounters through people and circumstances. I don't believe that man made in God's image will come to maturity without understanding themself as a separate individual, who understands that life is valued and valueable on many elements of "faith". How one defines faith depends on personal convictions and values.

Of course, some conservatives would find this problematic, as their belief that tradition is to continue to define truth, as any other way of thinking is idolatry or rebellion. I find that parenting has led me to believe otherwise. We support our children when they become adults, but helathy parenting wants them to grow into full responsible independent individuals. That does not mean that they disregard us as parent altogether, but that they only use our advice, as advice and don't feel compelled to believe as we do about any certain given area of conviction. I do not think that parents can take full responsibility for how their children turn out, as many factores influence and form the individual youg adult. We must, as parents, and teachers expose them to as amny opportunities as possible to broaden their world , so that they will be as free as possible from prejuidice and where they are biased, they understand and fully choose that bias.

This if the personal aspect of individual development. But, there is also, a moral responsibility toward our nation that is also an important value for the individual. I think that we live in a great nation, that is presently experiencing some challenges that we, the people, have been responsible for, but, these consequences are just the result of individuals seeking after their own interests at the expense of others. We cannot be a people without a moral responsibility and order that defends the values that we hold dearly, which is freedom and justice for ALL the people. If justice is compromised for those in places of power, then we will all suffer due to consequences that impinge upon our own freedoms. So, whenever anyone commits a crime, then there must be an understanding that we are morally responsible to hold the other to accountability. Justice maintains the structure that allows all of us to be "at peace" and seek our own interests within reason (reason being the consequences of not adhereing to law).

Terriorists are those who do not respect others in a just way. They seek to undermine our sense of security which is maintained by our laws. Therefore, it is imperative for us to hold these people to just laws and consequences that make them understand that the West will not allow disorder.

Personal Identity, Group Attachment and Abuse

In our local paper, one of the leaders at our university, states that "respect is yours, have it"! This is important news, because the context is a local domestic violence organization called "Hands of Hope". The abused need to know that they can have hope beyond the definitions that their abusor have given them. Hope is inspired when the heart is strenghtened with encouragement and empowerment.

Why is respect necessary to break free of abusive systems? Self respect is negated in environments that teach dependence or group mentality. Psychologists say this is an unhealthy attachment, because personal identity ceases to exist in such environments. The group defines what is right for the individual. The individual is negated because the individual has no choice about the matter. They are to obey and submit to what the system designs and desires.

A system is organizational structuring and is not wrong, in and of itself. But, if the system is not focused on giving freedom to individuals, but defining them, then the system ceases to be a healthy one. Cultures define individuals, but are not necessarily unhealthy, unless they take away the right of the individual to freely choose and determine their own life. Children, of course, are defined by their families, but young adults should come to a place where they understand their own person. This is personal identity.

Personal identity is important to develop, as it helps the individual to define their values and commitments. Reason is engaged in this formative stage and can bring about transformation of the person's understanding of themselves, their true values, and their reasons for choosing those values. This is an important stage in coming to terms with life calling. A life calling is not defined by others, only developed. And developing others in thier gifts is a life calling itself!

The Ideal S(s)tate

What is the ideal S(s)tate? An ideal state can only exist in an ideal State! Man is made to be free, while the State is to define proper boundaries of behavior (laws) for the ordering of society. An ideal state would allow enough freedom, so that the individual could choose amongst many valid values and goals.

In our world, we understand the importance of affirming human rights. It is only because governments are unjust that we agree to laws which define the rights of the individual, upholding and affirming dignity, which freedom guaruntees.

The Church cannot guaruntee human rights unless it refuses to identify "God" specifically. The Church should affirm and uphold the social structures that give a healthy environment for children to be raised, as well as a healthy and whole marriage where the partners are co-partners in God's grace of life. When God has been defined and identified by the Church's leadership too definitively, she has been used to intimidate and abuse individuals. The Church, after all, is defined by human membership and whatever "authority" that leadership determines defines the church. Human leadership have used their definitions of God and church to politicize their goals and sanitize their motives. The Church is a human instrument and is not an ideal State.

The State should consist of humans that agree upon the dignity of the individual. The individual should be the teleos of government. Each individual should be considered an equal member and an important part to the whole. While the individual is the goal of the group, the group must function within a framework of organizational structure. The organizational structure of our Representative Republic is the most ideal. While a Representative Republic is one aspect of governing over the structure, there must be a mutuality and accountability that is built within the structure, so the structure and governing leaders are accountable to the individuals they are to represent. But, as has been said that when the rulers start plundering the treasury for their own advantage, then we are in trouble. The Love of money is the root of all evil. This inordinate affection has led to the downfall of our Representative Republic and is the downfall of many in our country.

What then would hinder the self-interest that would be the inevitable outcome of a free society, and even one ruled by a distribution of power and a concern for the individual? The moral imperative to maintain society for one's own self-interest, as well as the other's self-interest would maintain a balance to our blindness when it comes to our own governance. Government should be understood to bring a healthy and whole ordered society for the individual and the family to function.

Therefore, the ideal State is run by leaders whose concern is for the country and not for self-interest alone. We must be a people that understands the importance of good government.