Today, I read the following article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101004/ap_on_re_eu/eu_netherlands_hate_speech
I think the suggestion to require citizenship classes for immigrants that they have to pay for, might limit those who are not serious about assimilation or for other more important reasons (religious) might not want to submit to our form of government. Wouldn't this limit the possibility of radicals intruding into our culture and undermining our laws?
Europe has started to change concerning their "tolerance policy". But, what is considered as "Facist"? Authoritarianism was the bane of our liberal and tolerant society. Americans do not believe that absolutism, when it concerns faith claims, can be made. This is what has polarized our culture wars and undermined our civility. We cannot "see" because of our emotional reactions to what we deem as "evil". We must come to understand what we "see" is, after all, a value system and we must cease to fear those that think or believe differently than we do.. And if we want to protect our liberties, we must embrace ordered liberty as the height of our value system. The problem will be in winning the war about what should be legislated to order our society.
Showing posts with label public policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public policy. Show all posts
Monday, October 4, 2010
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Transitions to New Realties
Change and transition are always a part of life. But, when transitions happen in one's life before the development to integrate them, it causes harm and great pain. I am speaking in personal terms of child development and the social realities of the family.
Since we are physical and historical beings, we are bound to develop within real historical realities of family, which is influenced by the culture it entertains.
In American society, where culture is diverse, there are many kinds or types of families. And these families are free to choice how they will raise their children, as long as it does not interfere with society's laws.
Society protects individual's, including children, from abuse. There are child protection agencies and social services that seek to intervene when family fails. And domestic violence groups protect women from abusive partners.
Psychologists and anthropologists have understood that we are social animals. We need social groups to meet human needs, as we develop personal identities. Experience in groups are what make for identification.
In fact, in studying Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, it was found that soldiers form a more formiable bonds to their fellow soldiers, than previous family bonds. This reality brings much heart-ache and re-adjustment to the military family, when the solier attempts to transition back into civilian life.
Adoptive and foster parents have discovered and sometime been forewarned that some children develop "attachment disorders" because of their chaotic or abusive families.
Teachers are aware of how much the parents involvment or uninvolvment affects the child's success in school. And problems at home distract student learning.
These realities are challenges to all of us, so that society will remain stable. And children can develop to fully functioning human beings.
Although family affects how the child develops in his "self-identity", i.e. who he is, what he stands for, and what he believes in and why, professors are bound by duty to expose their students to the wider world of knowledge, where children grapple with ideas and ideals that form and shape the world. These are no small or insignificant goals.
Our free society allows for free exchange of ideas and ideals. We should value more the "intellectual journey" of young adults. These are the future of America and the world. We should support those that attempt to form them in their thinking and not circumvent or suppress free information.
The Church has been challenged in this regard , in its understanding of faith, tradition and science. Today's reality of Darwinian evolution is no less daunting. And some deem this as an attack on faith altogether.
America was founded on the understanding that The Church is not the epitome, but man is. Man is created by his creator with certain inaleinable rights. These rights must be protected and sacralized by the Church. Otherwise, we disregard the person for Tradition. And Tradition is what needs changing, if it inhibits personal and societal development.
Our government forms policy that creates our political and social realities. Govenment must be protected from undue pressure from special interests groups. America or any free government needs to make policy on fact, not fiction, fantasy or fanaticism.
I think the family is a good start.
Since we are physical and historical beings, we are bound to develop within real historical realities of family, which is influenced by the culture it entertains.
In American society, where culture is diverse, there are many kinds or types of families. And these families are free to choice how they will raise their children, as long as it does not interfere with society's laws.
Society protects individual's, including children, from abuse. There are child protection agencies and social services that seek to intervene when family fails. And domestic violence groups protect women from abusive partners.
Psychologists and anthropologists have understood that we are social animals. We need social groups to meet human needs, as we develop personal identities. Experience in groups are what make for identification.
In fact, in studying Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, it was found that soldiers form a more formiable bonds to their fellow soldiers, than previous family bonds. This reality brings much heart-ache and re-adjustment to the military family, when the solier attempts to transition back into civilian life.
Adoptive and foster parents have discovered and sometime been forewarned that some children develop "attachment disorders" because of their chaotic or abusive families.
Teachers are aware of how much the parents involvment or uninvolvment affects the child's success in school. And problems at home distract student learning.
These realities are challenges to all of us, so that society will remain stable. And children can develop to fully functioning human beings.
Although family affects how the child develops in his "self-identity", i.e. who he is, what he stands for, and what he believes in and why, professors are bound by duty to expose their students to the wider world of knowledge, where children grapple with ideas and ideals that form and shape the world. These are no small or insignificant goals.
Our free society allows for free exchange of ideas and ideals. We should value more the "intellectual journey" of young adults. These are the future of America and the world. We should support those that attempt to form them in their thinking and not circumvent or suppress free information.
The Church has been challenged in this regard , in its understanding of faith, tradition and science. Today's reality of Darwinian evolution is no less daunting. And some deem this as an attack on faith altogether.
America was founded on the understanding that The Church is not the epitome, but man is. Man is created by his creator with certain inaleinable rights. These rights must be protected and sacralized by the Church. Otherwise, we disregard the person for Tradition. And Tradition is what needs changing, if it inhibits personal and societal development.
Our government forms policy that creates our political and social realities. Govenment must be protected from undue pressure from special interests groups. America or any free government needs to make policy on fact, not fiction, fantasy or fanaticism.
I think the family is a good start.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Names, Meaning and Value
"Dem dat's fighten words" is a common colloqualism. Words have meanings. And meanings define values. These are the things that life is "made of". And this is why there is so much diversity in the world. I couldn't live without diversity. Life would be dull and colorless. I just "react" to those who think their meanings are ultimate and absolute, because they de-value the diversity that makes life valuable.
Last night my grand-daughter was here. She is almost 3. She is confident and very "dramatic". I love to engage her. But, last night I was not cognizant of "where she was" and she ended up crying.why and how did this happen?
I began to point to others of her family members and give them different "names". I pointed to myself and said 'Mommy". She started out with "correcting me", but started to look befuddled and then began to cry. I recognized this as an indication that I was "confusing her world". She had names that defined people and they were defined by the roles that they signified. I was asking for her to think beyond her capabilities. So, of course, we brought comfort to her.
The challenge to educators is to expand, enlarge and encourage growth in the intellectual realm. Educators exist in many areas of our world, not just in the academic. Educators seek to bring understanding and and expansion of knowledge, so that others can grow beyond their narrow definitions and narrow and limiting worldviews.
When someone asks "what is of ultimate value", the answer will depend upon how the person has been educated. Those indoctrinated into Christian faith will have different responses depending on their understanding of faith and how broad their exposure to Christian experience is. I find that religion, for the most part, does define one's life in narrow ways.
Conventional morality is about what 'tradition' says is "correct". But, is tradition right, necessarily? Or is tradition only an aspect to a cultural ideal or norm? What is of greatest value? God, humanity, life on this planet, the environment, healthcare, growth in knowledge? The answer will depend on one's highest values in life. Religious tradition defines the highest value on an understanding of faith, while education values knowledge, and scientific endeavor values medicine and other research opportunities.
Our country does not define another's life for them, as we believe that though the individual is a social animal, he is also an independent moral agent, that must decide for himself. The individual is given opportunities by the social contexts he exposes himself to and then is free to decide what is of ultimate value and importance. There is no "right and wrong" answer, as values are about clarity of purpose and vision for one's life.
This is why the value of our country in protecting freedom is of ultimate value to and for me. I value freedom because it means that the individual does not have to confine himself to another's definition of what constitutes "greatest value". Freedom means that the individual is guarunteed justice, because the individual is a reponsible moral agent that can determine his own course.
Usually "war" transpires when others are protecting their own values. Fear of another's intrusion upon the values most held dear become self-protective walls. But, how do we engage those whose worlds are so confining and defined, that they will not engage. Diversity is not a cultural value. In fact, diversity is the very name to be destroyed.
In our world climate, Obama seems to be making attempts to change the world through diplomatic efforts. This is a noble cause, but I question how diversity can be maintained when the "absolutist laws of Sharia" will not allow such diversity. Whenever one labels another's difference with "Satan", then one cannot be rationally engaged. Religion does not allow for rational engagement because it is based on emotional connection to cultural identification in behavoiral terms, as well as a specified view of "God". This is not change that will come to the radical through diplomatic engagement. And this is why it is necessary that leaders of countries are rationally engaged with affirming difference. We have done this in the past, but with devastating consequences. And in our world climate, where the enemy is not readily identified, how do we protect the values of freedom and diversity? Do we engage countries that are dictatorial? Can we trust these?
I personally "fear" what Obama is doing, as I do not trust those who hold absolute power. And leaders who identify with those who hold absolute power are also, IMO, also untrustworthy, because those who do not hold the value of freedom and justice for all, which is a holding to the "balance of power", do not hold to the values of a liberal democracy....or a Repreentative Republic. These are those that use position to bring change, but at a costs to those under them. And this is why there has been much discussion about the "czars" that are independently appointed by this administration.
Obama has African roots and he maintains that equality is a global issue, not just a national one. This is disturbing to me because national interests (The Constitution) is the pledge of the President to uphold the values determined by our Founders. Can a globalist do this and remain true and trustworthy to "his people".
This is my concern, as words have meaning, but we must question what meaning is made when we hear those that hold values that are in opposition to ours. Then, we can be more educated about how to engage the public for the public good.
Last night my grand-daughter was here. She is almost 3. She is confident and very "dramatic". I love to engage her. But, last night I was not cognizant of "where she was" and she ended up crying.why and how did this happen?
I began to point to others of her family members and give them different "names". I pointed to myself and said 'Mommy". She started out with "correcting me", but started to look befuddled and then began to cry. I recognized this as an indication that I was "confusing her world". She had names that defined people and they were defined by the roles that they signified. I was asking for her to think beyond her capabilities. So, of course, we brought comfort to her.
The challenge to educators is to expand, enlarge and encourage growth in the intellectual realm. Educators exist in many areas of our world, not just in the academic. Educators seek to bring understanding and and expansion of knowledge, so that others can grow beyond their narrow definitions and narrow and limiting worldviews.
When someone asks "what is of ultimate value", the answer will depend upon how the person has been educated. Those indoctrinated into Christian faith will have different responses depending on their understanding of faith and how broad their exposure to Christian experience is. I find that religion, for the most part, does define one's life in narrow ways.
Conventional morality is about what 'tradition' says is "correct". But, is tradition right, necessarily? Or is tradition only an aspect to a cultural ideal or norm? What is of greatest value? God, humanity, life on this planet, the environment, healthcare, growth in knowledge? The answer will depend on one's highest values in life. Religious tradition defines the highest value on an understanding of faith, while education values knowledge, and scientific endeavor values medicine and other research opportunities.
Our country does not define another's life for them, as we believe that though the individual is a social animal, he is also an independent moral agent, that must decide for himself. The individual is given opportunities by the social contexts he exposes himself to and then is free to decide what is of ultimate value and importance. There is no "right and wrong" answer, as values are about clarity of purpose and vision for one's life.
This is why the value of our country in protecting freedom is of ultimate value to and for me. I value freedom because it means that the individual does not have to confine himself to another's definition of what constitutes "greatest value". Freedom means that the individual is guarunteed justice, because the individual is a reponsible moral agent that can determine his own course.
Usually "war" transpires when others are protecting their own values. Fear of another's intrusion upon the values most held dear become self-protective walls. But, how do we engage those whose worlds are so confining and defined, that they will not engage. Diversity is not a cultural value. In fact, diversity is the very name to be destroyed.
In our world climate, Obama seems to be making attempts to change the world through diplomatic efforts. This is a noble cause, but I question how diversity can be maintained when the "absolutist laws of Sharia" will not allow such diversity. Whenever one labels another's difference with "Satan", then one cannot be rationally engaged. Religion does not allow for rational engagement because it is based on emotional connection to cultural identification in behavoiral terms, as well as a specified view of "God". This is not change that will come to the radical through diplomatic engagement. And this is why it is necessary that leaders of countries are rationally engaged with affirming difference. We have done this in the past, but with devastating consequences. And in our world climate, where the enemy is not readily identified, how do we protect the values of freedom and diversity? Do we engage countries that are dictatorial? Can we trust these?
I personally "fear" what Obama is doing, as I do not trust those who hold absolute power. And leaders who identify with those who hold absolute power are also, IMO, also untrustworthy, because those who do not hold the value of freedom and justice for all, which is a holding to the "balance of power", do not hold to the values of a liberal democracy....or a Repreentative Republic. These are those that use position to bring change, but at a costs to those under them. And this is why there has been much discussion about the "czars" that are independently appointed by this administration.
Obama has African roots and he maintains that equality is a global issue, not just a national one. This is disturbing to me because national interests (The Constitution) is the pledge of the President to uphold the values determined by our Founders. Can a globalist do this and remain true and trustworthy to "his people".
This is my concern, as words have meaning, but we must question what meaning is made when we hear those that hold values that are in opposition to ours. Then, we can be more educated about how to engage the public for the public good.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
When Politics Drives Policy
My husband and I are in Colorado attending a scientific conference. Most of the information has been exciting to him, but tonight he wanted me to join him in attending a talk(s) on how science affects society and policy.
We were late getting to the talk, but the usual "politically correct" policies were being on the front burners of conversation.The scientist we heard was giving a talk and graphs on energy consumption and populations in a global perspective. He showed how the majority of the world's populations are expanding, while most of these don't even have electricity and live an impoverished existence. The discussion ensued over the questions of limiting our comsumption, limiting the expanding populations, and seeking new energy resources. He suggested that the government could underwrite R&D through a special tax. But, since he was from Europe, he made a remark about how Americans don't like taxes. The government cannot be the moral policman when it comes to R&D because then there is limited incentive for scientists to pursue a highly competitive and time-consuming career. And those who have benefitted from government money through grants have government "control" over how the money is to be used in pursuing R&D.
The media becomes useful to "educate" the public to the "wishes" of the government and the "pet projects" of those who want to control the resources of government in funding or limiting funding in specific scientific areas. Not just the "propagandizing of the media" for educating the public on "politically correct" scientific endeavors, but, this particular scientist said, it is difficult to get the proper information to the public and the politicians, who are not understand science. He gave the example of when scientists gave the media information regarding electricity usage and the media picked it up as energy. Policy ensued over incorrect information. Needless to say, that this policy will not be "met", as "mandated". So, public servants wasted time, the public's interest was disinvested, and the public good will not benefit through such means of legislation.
This president has made it his goal to be informed and to base his policy on "good science". This is good policy formation, but if, there is an agenda to "moralize science", limiting the "free market" and private industry, then, the economy cannot flourish and will not promote new innovations, and discovery, because there will be limited incentive and limited ability to engage science in new and original ways, unless it is done under the auspices of governmental oversight.
C.S. Lewis said, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated,; but, those who toment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." HOW TRUE!
We were late getting to the talk, but the usual "politically correct" policies were being on the front burners of conversation.The scientist we heard was giving a talk and graphs on energy consumption and populations in a global perspective. He showed how the majority of the world's populations are expanding, while most of these don't even have electricity and live an impoverished existence. The discussion ensued over the questions of limiting our comsumption, limiting the expanding populations, and seeking new energy resources. He suggested that the government could underwrite R&D through a special tax. But, since he was from Europe, he made a remark about how Americans don't like taxes. The government cannot be the moral policman when it comes to R&D because then there is limited incentive for scientists to pursue a highly competitive and time-consuming career. And those who have benefitted from government money through grants have government "control" over how the money is to be used in pursuing R&D.
The media becomes useful to "educate" the public to the "wishes" of the government and the "pet projects" of those who want to control the resources of government in funding or limiting funding in specific scientific areas. Not just the "propagandizing of the media" for educating the public on "politically correct" scientific endeavors, but, this particular scientist said, it is difficult to get the proper information to the public and the politicians, who are not understand science. He gave the example of when scientists gave the media information regarding electricity usage and the media picked it up as energy. Policy ensued over incorrect information. Needless to say, that this policy will not be "met", as "mandated". So, public servants wasted time, the public's interest was disinvested, and the public good will not benefit through such means of legislation.
This president has made it his goal to be informed and to base his policy on "good science". This is good policy formation, but if, there is an agenda to "moralize science", limiting the "free market" and private industry, then, the economy cannot flourish and will not promote new innovations, and discovery, because there will be limited incentive and limited ability to engage science in new and original ways, unless it is done under the auspices of governmental oversight.
C.S. Lewis said, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated,; but, those who toment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." HOW TRUE!
Friday, April 3, 2009
Justice, Moral Values, and Universals in Public Policy
Justice is maintaining equality under law. It is balanced and informed governing and government. Everyone is enriched, and blessed when government runs as it should, which is inclusive of the purpose of government.
Government is comprised of leaders who rule, make the rules, and determine direction. While our government is run by policy that is made by leaders, policy itself is fully informed (or should be) before determining which and what policy should be legislated. Legislation makes demands upon all of us, as policy is to better society. And better societies are for human flourishing.
Today, during an honor's college luncheon, a scholar whose discipline was political science gave a talk about the interface of Christian faith with the university, society, and public policy. The Christian traditionally had understood all of truth to be informative of "God's world". Thus, the disciplines were studied to further and undergird faith, not the other way around. But, what happens when science undermines a particular understanding of faith? This is where the Christian world is today, as each discipline has its own "story" or understanding of the "facts". What is the universalizing or whole understanding of truth? Postmodernity calls for there to be interdependence of the disciplines, which is responsibility and accountability of knowledge.
This scholar argued that the secularization of the university was the result of separating faith from "fact" (this was not her term, but mine). I also believe that all Truth is God's Truth. This means that there is no special revelation, but that all is revelation, as we learn and grow. But, I also believe that what we know is but "in part" therefore, there should be a real and honest humility in our policy making and listening to the various "experts".
One legal case study of a particular situation is not a valid argument to make for universiality, when it comes to moral universals, unless the Supreme Court so rules. But, it may influence courts in sucessive cases. So, it is important that the facts are all known. So I do not believe that a relgious authority, whether in Church or text, should be the universal determinant of the value of life. Science should be consulted in such cases, and not the Church alone. The Church should not be an oppressive ruling party, such as the Taliban, but a "voice" in our public square. And that voice should not be a shrill, unreasoned, irrational voice of fear and intimidation, but one of reasoned hope. A voice that appeals to reason and not filled with emotion. Reason is what postmodernity needs most.
"Universal" morality is defined in many ways. The arguments are always based on authorial sources, outside the "self". These sources in the Quadralateral are reason, scripture, tradition, and experience. Since postmodernity has undermined absolute reason, contextual texts, specific traditions, then the experience of the individual is all that is left, as a universal. Experience is only of value when one is appealing to a more unified way of arguing for moral value, which is "human experience". Human experience is based on a hierarchal "need" base, such as Maslow argued. But, even in arguing and agreeing on the universal of human experience and universal human needs, one does not validate a specific universal moral value. (Is poverty more important than education? It depends on the context. Is pastoring a Church more important than encouraging a young adult to pursue their dreams?)
Our country's values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are of greatest moral value to our people. Without liberty, one does not have life, as life must be free to choose what is of ultimate value. Liberty is not freedom to do anything one wants, such as cheating, lying, or stealing, but it is for seeking what one desires to be of value in one's life to bring happiness, and benefit society at large.
Life is of universal value as all people have it, but not everyone has liberty. We must fight for freedom above all because dominating traditions, or different voices that want to universalize the insignificant are undermining to the individual in their pursuit of happiness and their value of life.
Government is comprised of leaders who rule, make the rules, and determine direction. While our government is run by policy that is made by leaders, policy itself is fully informed (or should be) before determining which and what policy should be legislated. Legislation makes demands upon all of us, as policy is to better society. And better societies are for human flourishing.
Today, during an honor's college luncheon, a scholar whose discipline was political science gave a talk about the interface of Christian faith with the university, society, and public policy. The Christian traditionally had understood all of truth to be informative of "God's world". Thus, the disciplines were studied to further and undergird faith, not the other way around. But, what happens when science undermines a particular understanding of faith? This is where the Christian world is today, as each discipline has its own "story" or understanding of the "facts". What is the universalizing or whole understanding of truth? Postmodernity calls for there to be interdependence of the disciplines, which is responsibility and accountability of knowledge.
This scholar argued that the secularization of the university was the result of separating faith from "fact" (this was not her term, but mine). I also believe that all Truth is God's Truth. This means that there is no special revelation, but that all is revelation, as we learn and grow. But, I also believe that what we know is but "in part" therefore, there should be a real and honest humility in our policy making and listening to the various "experts".
One legal case study of a particular situation is not a valid argument to make for universiality, when it comes to moral universals, unless the Supreme Court so rules. But, it may influence courts in sucessive cases. So, it is important that the facts are all known. So I do not believe that a relgious authority, whether in Church or text, should be the universal determinant of the value of life. Science should be consulted in such cases, and not the Church alone. The Church should not be an oppressive ruling party, such as the Taliban, but a "voice" in our public square. And that voice should not be a shrill, unreasoned, irrational voice of fear and intimidation, but one of reasoned hope. A voice that appeals to reason and not filled with emotion. Reason is what postmodernity needs most.
"Universal" morality is defined in many ways. The arguments are always based on authorial sources, outside the "self". These sources in the Quadralateral are reason, scripture, tradition, and experience. Since postmodernity has undermined absolute reason, contextual texts, specific traditions, then the experience of the individual is all that is left, as a universal. Experience is only of value when one is appealing to a more unified way of arguing for moral value, which is "human experience". Human experience is based on a hierarchal "need" base, such as Maslow argued. But, even in arguing and agreeing on the universal of human experience and universal human needs, one does not validate a specific universal moral value. (Is poverty more important than education? It depends on the context. Is pastoring a Church more important than encouraging a young adult to pursue their dreams?)
Our country's values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are of greatest moral value to our people. Without liberty, one does not have life, as life must be free to choose what is of ultimate value. Liberty is not freedom to do anything one wants, such as cheating, lying, or stealing, but it is for seeking what one desires to be of value in one's life to bring happiness, and benefit society at large.
Life is of universal value as all people have it, but not everyone has liberty. We must fight for freedom above all because dominating traditions, or different voices that want to universalize the insignificant are undermining to the individual in their pursuit of happiness and their value of life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
