News About Immigration, and" Hate Speech"

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.

I Find It Disturbing...

The failed attempt to blow up a transatlantic flight out of Amsterdam recently adds "fuel to the fire" that education does not "transform" one's commitment to religion's claims to radicalism. I find this disturbing, when educators think that all that is needed to transform the world is a little more information.

Fort Hood's Execution

"An eye for an eye" was the Old Testament balance for "justice". An "eye for an eye" limited revenge to fairness. One could not kill another because of the loss of an eye. Maybe this is the measure we should meet out with such crimes as happened at Fort Hood.

Everyone knows by now, that this will be a military trial, which is fair, as it was on military soil and the military suffered the loss.

I do applaud many news organizations for prefacing their "news" with qualifications of "innocence", because we are a people that believe that one is innocent until proven guilty under a trial by jury. I am glad for this.

But, I am not satisfied with everyone tiptoeing around the connection of Islam to this man. He was a Muslim. But, to protect our nation from an uprising that would hinder the climate of tolerance, news sources cover over the details that might suggest a religious motive.

The athiests are crying for a banning of religious freedom, because of their fear of radicalism, while the conservative religious believer is adamantly holding to their right to "free speech" and free belief. The climate in America is at a boiling point over issues concerning religion, race, and "rights".

I grieve for the loss of these soldiers, but I also grieve over the loss of integrity for this psychiatrist. He needs help. I am hoping that an "eye for an eye" will turn out to be a measure of justice as the trial commences.

Let us hope that this will never happen again within military quarters and that military personel are all aware of the consequences of being "politically correct", when there are valid concerns and ultimate costs of lives.

Is There Such a Thing as Historical Christianity?

I have alluded to the fact that some of the things I have been learning have led me to question whether there is a real beginning to Christianity. This is what many in the scholarly world seek to prove.

In fact, it seems that even the roots of Christianity, the Jewish tradition, is also of various opinions and theories. This leaves little room for rational faith. And this is the point of the radical. Radicalism is the 'leap" where reason leaves off. But, what if one is not willing to trust the dark as "God's hand"? Does that person "die in their sins"?

I find it hard to believe or think that any God worth serving is "bound to anyone's service" , "duty", or understanding. Service must come from the person's desire to do "good" and their voluntary giving of themselves in their personal value system and not from any outside source or authorial demand. This is why I wonder and question about people of radical faith.

As faith has been based on many things, what is truly "real faith"? Faith in a rationale for life is no less faith. Why does anyone suppose that faith has to look "the same" or believe the same things about life in this world, as faith is living out one's life based upon one's understanding of life. Everyone has faith, just not in the type of 'god" you might suppose, by faith.

Problems for the West

The West has developed their own "selfhood", but some think that this is at the expense of society and the larger world, as we are individualists. So, in seeking for equality in a limited world, many have sought to develop policy on the environment, or natural resources or, become concerned over poverty around the world. While the envioronment and natural resources, as well as poverty are all "noble causes", they are limited in focus, policy driven by environmental issues or poverty alone will subvert other interests. All interests are of concern in the West, as we are a diverse people.

Science is innovative and therefore, the West has recourse to environmental limitations. And some have become involved in seeking to alleviate poverty by helping with sustenance relief. But, while the environment and poverty are some of the driving forces of public policy today, we, in the West, cannot deny, or ignore the political dangers that exist in the world. Dismissing danger to our sovereign right to exist and hold our own cultural values, will undermine all of the civility in the world. Radical faith is the driving force behind terrorism, and fundamentalism that undermind rational and reasonable government.

Government that determines it's foreign policy on "peace", when these ideological religions exist, is only living in "fantasy land". Peace is not what radicals seek. They seek the universalization of their understanding and their world at all costs. And it does not matter how they undermine or subvert another's "world". Their voice and understanding is The "lone voice".

While the radicalized religious zealot is one political danger, science can also be a dangerous terrain for public behavior. Genetic engineering, while giving much promise and hope to mankind, has not had any type of guidance as to any limitation upon its power to make change in society. Bio-ethics is an important issue to be addressed, as without these limitations to scientific discovery, we are headed into a Brave New World, where it will be the intellectual elite that determine public policy, limiting the average citizen their right of "voice".

How does the West live with those who do not believe in universal human rights? much less woman's rights? or individual rights apart from societial function? How do we, as "free people" allow a different culture that has different political implications. Who murder their "sinners"? Or determine the outcomes?

We cannot be blind, or naive'. Our security needs to be of first and upmost importance, so that we can maintain rationale for universal human rights and the free society that we have always enjoyed. Religion should not be politicized. The public sphere, though influenced by religion, as the religious are representative of a group, cannot be the only group to determine policy without a counter-balance of weighing difference.

And the scientific discoveries of the West with all of the possibilities, cannot drive policy without discretion and humility. Science is good, but should only be used in the right way and the discussion about what that "right way" is should involve all of us.