On our anniversary, my husband and I decided to go to the movies to watch the new Meryl Streep movie, "Hope Springs". We think Meryl Streep is a great actress, and thought this would be a good choice for entertainment. But, instead of entertainment, I found myself wondering what meaning I could find in the movie.
The movie is about a couple who had "lost touch" with each other, as they had been married for 31 years. Their basic problem, it seemed, was their lack of communication or intimacy. Intimacy was much more than the physical act of sex, or the legal aspect of marriage. Intimacy was the communication style of the couple, which had broken down.
They sought a marriage counselor only after much "dispute" and it seemed that the marriage counselor's advice brought up many 'conflicts' within the relationship, which needed to be resolved before the marriage could "go on".
The counselor sought to bring to the forefront the question about their basic attraction to one another, what their fantasies were and encouraging the couple to compromise and cooperate with each other in meeting those desires.
All of the counselors advice made me think of "sex" within the broader context of our society, in general. America has had her conflict over what will define marriage, but is marriage a traditional/religious value, or a social construct that benefits the parties involved?
How can human relationships and natural human desires exist within a healthy context that maintains "order", while not denying the natural needs and desires of the humans involved? Does shame enter into the questions that this movie brought to the forefront? Marital difficulties, separation and divorce, masturbation, oral sex, human desire and natural needs in the context of religious framing when social structures and society itself has changed in light of "scripture and tradition"?
Humans get married at later ages than in "biblical times", leaving the question of natural human desires on the physical and emotional/social planes. Students need to finish college or find what they want to do with their lives before taking on responsiblities of a spouse and family... Are natural human desires to be accomadated by marrying earlier, self determination (however conscience allows), and is it a "shame" to allow for same sex unions? What is the best for society and human flourishing? Does tradition enlighten, or inhibit? When is inhibition and enlightenment considered a good thing? Does society exists for the individual or does the individual exists for society? That question has been a quandary....
"Hope Springs" made me think of our society and what makes for a good marriage, and and a good society. It cannot be less than mutually satisfying relationship, if marriage is to have a real meaning and impact. And both the husband and wife in "Hope Springs" illustrated what that meant for them individually. The wife had come to the "end of the highway", because she found herself more lonely married than she would be unmarried. The husband had abandoned his wife many years prior, yet would not admit it to himself for his own reasons. Marriage is about companionship, as much as sex, or a legal contract. And it makes for "stranger bedfellows" if marriage is about anything less.....
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Is Religion Outdated, or the "Old Answer"?
"The taming and domestication of religion is one of the unceasing chores of civilization. " Christopher Hitchens
Do you agree? Or do you think that without religion, man is "lost", either literally in an afterlife, or metaphorically, in the 'here and now"? One truly believes in "God" as a personal being, while the other is a more "socialized" undestanding. Is the socialized understanding against what our Enlightened Founders understood to be the basis of our liberty?
Does it take religion to get man to "behave himself"? Or is man made to develop morally speaking? And how is that to be accomplished? Is such "moral development" an innate nature, or is it something that is culturally defined and determined?
Is man only a blank slate that society and his environment "form"? and what and how does individual experience "form" or correlate to society's impact?
Does man's environment impact him physically, or does his physical pre-disposition impact his "understanding"? Science has determined that liberal and conservative bents are innate/genetic or pre-determined...How much is pre-determined by our genes...and how is this pre-determination influenced/impacted by one's environment...and how?
These are questions that science is studying, and bringing in new results and information that will impact the future of our understanding of religion... amd society at large! We must stay informed...
Do you agree? Or do you think that without religion, man is "lost", either literally in an afterlife, or metaphorically, in the 'here and now"? One truly believes in "God" as a personal being, while the other is a more "socialized" undestanding. Is the socialized understanding against what our Enlightened Founders understood to be the basis of our liberty?
Does it take religion to get man to "behave himself"? Or is man made to develop morally speaking? And how is that to be accomplished? Is such "moral development" an innate nature, or is it something that is culturally defined and determined?
Is man only a blank slate that society and his environment "form"? and what and how does individual experience "form" or correlate to society's impact?
Does man's environment impact him physically, or does his physical pre-disposition impact his "understanding"? Science has determined that liberal and conservative bents are innate/genetic or pre-determined...How much is pre-determined by our genes...and how is this pre-determination influenced/impacted by one's environment...and how?
These are questions that science is studying, and bringing in new results and information that will impact the future of our understanding of religion... amd society at large! We must stay informed...
Friday, June 17, 2011
The Tyranny of Religious Authority
Ayn Rand
For centuries, the mystics of spirit had existed by running a protection racket—by making life on earth unbearable, then charging you for consolation and relief, by forbidding all the virtues that make existence possible, then riding on the shoulders of your guilt, by declaring production and joy to be sins, then collecting blackmail from the sinners.
Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 153
For centuries, the mystics of spirit had existed by running a protection racket—by making life on earth unbearable, then charging you for consolation and relief, by forbidding all the virtues that make existence possible, then riding on the shoulders of your guilt, by declaring production and joy to be sins, then collecting blackmail from the sinners.
Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 153
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Power and the Law
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely", so said Lord Acton. Our Founders found this to be so, as well. They framed our government so power could not be absolute, or at least ideally. There are always ways around the law, but those that choose to abide by our laws do so to promote order, and value the liberty our laws are to protect!
Those that are driven by power are driven because of insatiable needs that corrupt them from governing for the "greater good" or from being "public representatives" that serve the public's interests. Power does corrupt. Power has a deadening effect on those under it. There is a sense of invincibility when one has power to wield. Therefore, power must be held by those that are self-reflective enough to know its deadening impact. Many have lost their "life" and reputations because of using their power and influence to gain absolution from the law. Fudging on one's income taxes is to be expected, everyone does it. Then, what are the laws defending? Are laws there to protect some ideal? And what is the rationale for these laws and ideals?
These are questions that concern our courts, in our present day. But, they used to concern the average citizen. People were more prone to self-evaluation back then. Religion serves the purpose of self-reflection for fear of "God's judgment", or "fitting in" with the Church club. And rightly so, for the philosophers of the past said that an "unexamined life is one not worth living".
Religion today does not serve the purpose of "examing one's life". Religion serves the end of justification of one's life or one's end. This leaves little room for self-reflection or self-examination, and religion ends up being the validation of "stoning another" or judging another based on personal conviction.
Personal conviction was the liberty of conscience our Founders granted under law. Religous conscience is valued, but was never to condone the right of judgment, as that was the place of government. Government was to protect everyone's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But, nowadays, the religious fear that our nation has gone too far.
While I agree that our nation has dissolved any means of evaluating values, it isn't because Americans aren't religious/believers, but because religion and the American way of life itself has gotten in the way of "self reflection". We don't have time to do everything on our plates. We delegate to those we hardly know and suffer the consequences of unwise delegation.
We hurry to meet all our promises, which we can hardly meet, with family responsibilities and we wonder why our families suffer or deadlines go by without our meeting them. We bite off more than we can chew. We must know our strengths and weaknesses enough to know what we can handle and make our choices wisely.
Many have gotten into financial straits because they have only looked at the monthly payment, and presumed upon the future, not preparing for it. Wisdom doesn't presume upon others, but meets life with an attitude that one must take their own responsiblity, and not look to others for the hand-out, nor should we compare our standard of living with another's. Everyone doesn't have the same material blessings. So what? The question should be is the pursuit of the material what life consists of? And what are the costs of such a pursuit?. This is not to say that no one should ever have a need that can't be met and our sociel networks could help provide, but more often than not, we are taught that we need dependence on others or that we have a right to have what everyone else has. Such teaching doesn't demand self-responsible behavior. Self-responsible behavior means that society consists for the most part of self-responsible adults, and not dependent children.
All governments are not equal. This is obvious to anyone that loves liberty. Is it moral to demand immoral governments to 'obey' or comply with human rights under the hand of our government's Power? How much should we intervene into other countries and their problems? And how do we choose to get involved? Are our own interests the only protections that are deemed worthy of using power? Obviously, America is limited by resources, and time. Are these what should frame what and when we "give a hand" to those wishing for reform?. But, there are other extenuating circumstances, that make for conflicting interests. Our politicians, and ambassadors are the ones that evaluate those decisions. And our judgments from afar might not know all the facts, nor the conflicts that impinge on such decisions.
I am no expert, by any means, but it seems to me that we all have biases about where we draw our lines. Most of us are not consistant, nor are we reflective enough to know why we choose what we do, nor why we do so. All of us need to evaluate ourselves and determine how we would "lead" if givern similar circumstances and ask ourselves why we make those choices. This would reveal our underlying motivations and determine our priority of values. Then, we might understand that decisions are not "black and white" solutions, but complex problems that need creative minds to solve.
Those that are driven by power are driven because of insatiable needs that corrupt them from governing for the "greater good" or from being "public representatives" that serve the public's interests. Power does corrupt. Power has a deadening effect on those under it. There is a sense of invincibility when one has power to wield. Therefore, power must be held by those that are self-reflective enough to know its deadening impact. Many have lost their "life" and reputations because of using their power and influence to gain absolution from the law. Fudging on one's income taxes is to be expected, everyone does it. Then, what are the laws defending? Are laws there to protect some ideal? And what is the rationale for these laws and ideals?
These are questions that concern our courts, in our present day. But, they used to concern the average citizen. People were more prone to self-evaluation back then. Religion serves the purpose of self-reflection for fear of "God's judgment", or "fitting in" with the Church club. And rightly so, for the philosophers of the past said that an "unexamined life is one not worth living".
Religion today does not serve the purpose of "examing one's life". Religion serves the end of justification of one's life or one's end. This leaves little room for self-reflection or self-examination, and religion ends up being the validation of "stoning another" or judging another based on personal conviction.
Personal conviction was the liberty of conscience our Founders granted under law. Religous conscience is valued, but was never to condone the right of judgment, as that was the place of government. Government was to protect everyone's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But, nowadays, the religious fear that our nation has gone too far.
While I agree that our nation has dissolved any means of evaluating values, it isn't because Americans aren't religious/believers, but because religion and the American way of life itself has gotten in the way of "self reflection". We don't have time to do everything on our plates. We delegate to those we hardly know and suffer the consequences of unwise delegation.
We hurry to meet all our promises, which we can hardly meet, with family responsibilities and we wonder why our families suffer or deadlines go by without our meeting them. We bite off more than we can chew. We must know our strengths and weaknesses enough to know what we can handle and make our choices wisely.
Many have gotten into financial straits because they have only looked at the monthly payment, and presumed upon the future, not preparing for it. Wisdom doesn't presume upon others, but meets life with an attitude that one must take their own responsiblity, and not look to others for the hand-out, nor should we compare our standard of living with another's. Everyone doesn't have the same material blessings. So what? The question should be is the pursuit of the material what life consists of? And what are the costs of such a pursuit?. This is not to say that no one should ever have a need that can't be met and our sociel networks could help provide, but more often than not, we are taught that we need dependence on others or that we have a right to have what everyone else has. Such teaching doesn't demand self-responsible behavior. Self-responsible behavior means that society consists for the most part of self-responsible adults, and not dependent children.
All governments are not equal. This is obvious to anyone that loves liberty. Is it moral to demand immoral governments to 'obey' or comply with human rights under the hand of our government's Power? How much should we intervene into other countries and their problems? And how do we choose to get involved? Are our own interests the only protections that are deemed worthy of using power? Obviously, America is limited by resources, and time. Are these what should frame what and when we "give a hand" to those wishing for reform?. But, there are other extenuating circumstances, that make for conflicting interests. Our politicians, and ambassadors are the ones that evaluate those decisions. And our judgments from afar might not know all the facts, nor the conflicts that impinge on such decisions.
I am no expert, by any means, but it seems to me that we all have biases about where we draw our lines. Most of us are not consistant, nor are we reflective enough to know why we choose what we do, nor why we do so. All of us need to evaluate ourselves and determine how we would "lead" if givern similar circumstances and ask ourselves why we make those choices. This would reveal our underlying motivations and determine our priority of values. Then, we might understand that decisions are not "black and white" solutions, but complex problems that need creative minds to solve.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Why Longings of the Heart Reasonates With Me
The "Longings of the Heart" was the title of the last post. Why did I choose such a title? The subject was about a eulogy of a Jewish scholar who'd impacted his students and their eulogies were memorials to his life. He lives on in their lives.
Humans all resonate with beauty, justice, and love. These are universal categories that are made vivid in a particular human frame. The longing of my heart was about the care these students had under thier mentor's tutlelege. Of course, their choice to pursue their speicified interests was what put them in contact with him in the first place. He had represented all of these attributes to them personally in their pursuit of a degree. Such stories resonate within the human heart.
Today, I had an exchange with an Eastern Christian, who said he identified in his particularity to Christ. His identity is defined by Jesus and his life. But, I had understood Paul's message about Jesus' life and Jesus life itself as a universalization (liberalization) of religion itself. Religion defines itself by doctrine/behavior that defines people "outside" or "inside" (us/them). All groups define themselves in this way; families, community groups, ethnic identities, social clubs, professional clubs/guilds and national identifications.
The geopolitical realm is not going to reflect such universalism, because we do define ourselves within our contexts of value. Individuals must discriminate to define themselves. And free societies allow individual to identify in many ways. In psychological terms, it is called individuation.
So, even though I did not know Alan Segal, nor did I read his works in depth, I found myself moved by his life, through those he had touched, he will live "eternally" through his efforts here on earth!
Humans all resonate with beauty, justice, and love. These are universal categories that are made vivid in a particular human frame. The longing of my heart was about the care these students had under thier mentor's tutlelege. Of course, their choice to pursue their speicified interests was what put them in contact with him in the first place. He had represented all of these attributes to them personally in their pursuit of a degree. Such stories resonate within the human heart.
Today, I had an exchange with an Eastern Christian, who said he identified in his particularity to Christ. His identity is defined by Jesus and his life. But, I had understood Paul's message about Jesus' life and Jesus life itself as a universalization (liberalization) of religion itself. Religion defines itself by doctrine/behavior that defines people "outside" or "inside" (us/them). All groups define themselves in this way; families, community groups, ethnic identities, social clubs, professional clubs/guilds and national identifications.
The geopolitical realm is not going to reflect such universalism, because we do define ourselves within our contexts of value. Individuals must discriminate to define themselves. And free societies allow individual to identify in many ways. In psychological terms, it is called individuation.
So, even though I did not know Alan Segal, nor did I read his works in depth, I found myself moved by his life, through those he had touched, he will live "eternally" through his efforts here on earth!
Thursday, March 17, 2011
The Human Person as a Work of Art
Humans differ as to their interests and choices of value. This is important to affirm and uphold in free societies, even when we disagree, as humans are not to be cloned representations of their parents, mentors, or voluntary associations. The human person is more than the sum of his/her parts. It is called irreducible complexity. And those that want to mandate a moral realism that perverts the human ability to "be in the world" as an autonomous moral agent is deluded about their right to power.
I got to thinking about realism itself, because of another blog site on Moral Ontology by Richard Carrier. Art is understood in philosophical terms such as realism, surrealism, or impressionism.
A realist painter paints a picture that is representative of reality. There is no question about the painting and what it is. Realism is a correspondence theory of understanding "truth claims". Such a view of "Truth" is understood as absolute, because of its direct correspondence to "the real". Such thinking is what underlies traditional understanding of theology. Everything that "is", is directly underpinned by "God", even history itself.
But, there are other art forms that are just as beautiful that express their time. Impressionism comes to mind. Impressionistic paintors paint without defined lines, but still have a "sense of" reality or of objective form. It is more intuitive painting, as it is romantic. I love Von Gogh and French impressionists, like Delacroix. These paintors would be more Transcendental in their understanding of 'truth", as truth is worked into reality, but not a direct representation. Such writers as Emerson, and Whitman come to mind, especially Emerson's "Over-soul" and Whitman's "Leaves of Grass". Romanticism has influenced American culture through the "Story" as Real. Our myth is the American Dream, where everyone has opportunity and all are 'equal before the law'.
There is also the surrealist paintors like Salvador Dali. I love his work because of the many meanings that can be read into his paintings. Surrealists have post-conventional ways of expressing their art. Their art is an expression about representations in conventional society that have hindered or slighted the "whole picture". Their attempt to express anti-traidtional values, or the minority "vision" have left the traditionalists uncomfortable.
I think humans should be free to interpret their reality. Therefore, I wouldn't be a legalist, but I think that the laws of our country should protect all expressions of life that do not usurp the basic foundations of society. And I think this is what we argue in the cultural wars. Laws should be like impressionism, defined where they are seen and understood, but not defined by "rude lines" in the sand. Such is Islamic religious culture. Human experience does not lend itself well to such views of justice.
Humans should be autonomous moral agents that can choose their associations by their frames of understading and their identification factors. There shouldn't be discrimination of those that don't hold the majority's opinions, but neither should there be special priviledge for them, either.
Art in its many forms has brought untold blesshing to man's life, as it allows creativity of expression for the individual artist and it allows culture to evolve, seeks to bring all humans 'under one roof" of the human experience/condition and makes society more of an "open" society.
Relgion because of its need to define "God" in theologial language comes short of describing the indescribalble. The huamnities benefit all men because they speaks beyond words to the heart, at least for those that are open. Religous climates have been known to oppress certain expressions of art because of the fear that art would be offensive to "God". What should be understood is how art has enhanced man's ability to appreciate the beauty of human experience, even the common ones, even the tragic ones teach us. Journalism, art in it many forms, writing, communication arts can all be means of grasping and grappling with the human condition. Beauty can be grasped through a "human message", or a "human idea", or a "human value", which all underwrite the human experience!
Humans are works of art, whether one believes that natural processes or "God" created human persons in their complexity. Humans should be allowed to advance their art form in a free and open society.
I got to thinking about realism itself, because of another blog site on Moral Ontology by Richard Carrier. Art is understood in philosophical terms such as realism, surrealism, or impressionism.
A realist painter paints a picture that is representative of reality. There is no question about the painting and what it is. Realism is a correspondence theory of understanding "truth claims". Such a view of "Truth" is understood as absolute, because of its direct correspondence to "the real". Such thinking is what underlies traditional understanding of theology. Everything that "is", is directly underpinned by "God", even history itself.
But, there are other art forms that are just as beautiful that express their time. Impressionism comes to mind. Impressionistic paintors paint without defined lines, but still have a "sense of" reality or of objective form. It is more intuitive painting, as it is romantic. I love Von Gogh and French impressionists, like Delacroix. These paintors would be more Transcendental in their understanding of 'truth", as truth is worked into reality, but not a direct representation. Such writers as Emerson, and Whitman come to mind, especially Emerson's "Over-soul" and Whitman's "Leaves of Grass". Romanticism has influenced American culture through the "Story" as Real. Our myth is the American Dream, where everyone has opportunity and all are 'equal before the law'.
There is also the surrealist paintors like Salvador Dali. I love his work because of the many meanings that can be read into his paintings. Surrealists have post-conventional ways of expressing their art. Their art is an expression about representations in conventional society that have hindered or slighted the "whole picture". Their attempt to express anti-traidtional values, or the minority "vision" have left the traditionalists uncomfortable.
I think humans should be free to interpret their reality. Therefore, I wouldn't be a legalist, but I think that the laws of our country should protect all expressions of life that do not usurp the basic foundations of society. And I think this is what we argue in the cultural wars. Laws should be like impressionism, defined where they are seen and understood, but not defined by "rude lines" in the sand. Such is Islamic religious culture. Human experience does not lend itself well to such views of justice.
Humans should be autonomous moral agents that can choose their associations by their frames of understading and their identification factors. There shouldn't be discrimination of those that don't hold the majority's opinions, but neither should there be special priviledge for them, either.
Art in its many forms has brought untold blesshing to man's life, as it allows creativity of expression for the individual artist and it allows culture to evolve, seeks to bring all humans 'under one roof" of the human experience/condition and makes society more of an "open" society.
Relgion because of its need to define "God" in theologial language comes short of describing the indescribalble. The huamnities benefit all men because they speaks beyond words to the heart, at least for those that are open. Religous climates have been known to oppress certain expressions of art because of the fear that art would be offensive to "God". What should be understood is how art has enhanced man's ability to appreciate the beauty of human experience, even the common ones, even the tragic ones teach us. Journalism, art in it many forms, writing, communication arts can all be means of grasping and grappling with the human condition. Beauty can be grasped through a "human message", or a "human idea", or a "human value", which all underwrite the human experience!
Humans are works of art, whether one believes that natural processes or "God" created human persons in their complexity. Humans should be allowed to advance their art form in a free and open society.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Conclusion of The Good Is Really The Bad
The conclusion of the Good Is Really the Bad;
My Ego (The Good) where my real life, real world, and decision making commitments of value has been "told" by my "Super-Ego" (Relgious conscience) my desires are Bad! And because of that "condemnation" I don't care for religion!
My Ego (The Good) where my real life, real world, and decision making commitments of value has been "told" by my "Super-Ego" (Relgious conscience) my desires are Bad! And because of that "condemnation" I don't care for religion!
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Man's Reason Is the Reason for Good Government
Good government is based on its limitations upon itself and others, so that the individual can have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The individual's reason alone is to be responsible for the values that are to be held most dear. And these values are formed within the contexts of the individual's life, not the tribe, or State. Both the State and the tribe err as to authority. The tribe errs on the mystical, religious, while the State errs on another's reasoned "program", "Production" or Purpose". The individual himself is the ultimate end, not the State, the community, the tribe, or society. The individual's life is his own.
Without good government that allows freedom of thought and freedom of action, then there is no development of reason. Reason is stymied, suppressed, or subverted. Students must not be spoon fed, but be given a good dose of academic freedom to pursue interests that might prove to be a "life calling". Otherwise, students are "formed" or "shaped" into whatever the propaganda delegates as the necessary "need" for/of the moment. The intellectual elites are those that have such agendas. And those so duped to follow mindlessly into the trap of alturism, are being sacrificial "lambs" on the altar of a liberal agenda.
Good government is like good leadership; less is better.
Without good government that allows freedom of thought and freedom of action, then there is no development of reason. Reason is stymied, suppressed, or subverted. Students must not be spoon fed, but be given a good dose of academic freedom to pursue interests that might prove to be a "life calling". Otherwise, students are "formed" or "shaped" into whatever the propaganda delegates as the necessary "need" for/of the moment. The intellectual elites are those that have such agendas. And those so duped to follow mindlessly into the trap of alturism, are being sacrificial "lambs" on the altar of a liberal agenda.
Good government is like good leadership; less is better.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Political Correctness and Free Speech
"Political correctness" is not just a recent phenomenon. And not just one political or social structure has been guilty of it. The problem is not with social structures themselves, but when the social structures obtain the political power to abuse the individual with "political correctness". The individual, not the social structure OR the group, however that is defined, that is most important.
In times past, religion determined what was "politically correct". Religion has the history of investigating witches, scientists, and heretics. The political power of the Church, as a political machine determined what was "politically correct". Political power in such an institution does not grant individual liberty of conscience.
In more recent times, political ideology and nationalism determined what was 'politically correct". "Political correctness' was determined by Nazi Germany. And the discriminated were the Jews. Political power seeks to affirm one group, however that is defined, at the expense of the other.
Today, religion and science vies for the power for "political correctness". Religion, on the one hand, demands obedience and respect, irregardless of questions, opinions and various individual differences. These believe that there is "one way of understanding human experience" or "God", when it comes to religion.
On the opposite end of political correctness, is science. Science determines what is "real" and what is seeking to understand what is the political correct view of "being human". "Human Nature" is what will be the "politically correct" way of being in the world. There is no individuality there.
Both religion and science seeks to be the determination of global affairs instructuring the world "in their own image". This is why we are in our culture wars today.
Islam, as the "correct" discriminated party today, is protected under our 'politically correct" political "order". No one can say anything against a Muslim because the world is doing its penance toward Islam's discrimination. This "politically correct" view is not dissimilar to African Americans and their discrimination. How is a "political correct" view not discriminating against those that differ in their views?
The world is doing it penance toward these racial /religious discriminatons by a re-distribution of wealth and power. And it is a dangerous enterprise to say the least. Whenever one justifies victimization to an extreme, then we do disservice to human development and enable the victim to remain unchanged. There is a place for affirming "what happened", but there is no justification for "social justice" when justice seeks to make others pay for another 'time' or place in history!
In times past, religion determined what was "politically correct". Religion has the history of investigating witches, scientists, and heretics. The political power of the Church, as a political machine determined what was "politically correct". Political power in such an institution does not grant individual liberty of conscience.
In more recent times, political ideology and nationalism determined what was 'politically correct". "Political correctness' was determined by Nazi Germany. And the discriminated were the Jews. Political power seeks to affirm one group, however that is defined, at the expense of the other.
Today, religion and science vies for the power for "political correctness". Religion, on the one hand, demands obedience and respect, irregardless of questions, opinions and various individual differences. These believe that there is "one way of understanding human experience" or "God", when it comes to religion.
On the opposite end of political correctness, is science. Science determines what is "real" and what is seeking to understand what is the political correct view of "being human". "Human Nature" is what will be the "politically correct" way of being in the world. There is no individuality there.
Both religion and science seeks to be the determination of global affairs instructuring the world "in their own image". This is why we are in our culture wars today.
Islam, as the "correct" discriminated party today, is protected under our 'politically correct" political "order". No one can say anything against a Muslim because the world is doing its penance toward Islam's discrimination. This "politically correct" view is not dissimilar to African Americans and their discrimination. How is a "political correct" view not discriminating against those that differ in their views?
The world is doing it penance toward these racial /religious discriminatons by a re-distribution of wealth and power. And it is a dangerous enterprise to say the least. Whenever one justifies victimization to an extreme, then we do disservice to human development and enable the victim to remain unchanged. There is a place for affirming "what happened", but there is no justification for "social justice" when justice seeks to make others pay for another 'time' or place in history!
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
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 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?
Myth Brings Meaning
Myth is known by anthropologists to bring meaning to a certain culture. And meaning is "made" or created by mythologizing history.
This morning started my thinking on myth-making. As my husband and I were discussing my grandfather and his present physical needs, I recognized that human beings love to "romanticize" their history. This is why many times we like to reminisce over the "younger years". I have been told that many mothers would not choose to have any more children, if they really remembered the reality of labor. Somehow our brains release a relaxing chemical that promotes "memory loss". And sometimes there is actual medication to further that memory loss!
Myths make for stories that we tell our children and hold meaning of ideals that help further our goals. This is what I think has happened in our culture wars.
The real history we may never really know, but scholars do have some knowledge about that "real history", as they struggle to piece it together. But, those that have agendas that must be won, mythologize history to suit their purposes. The Church has always done this, as this is what theology is about.
Our culture wars are about where science and tradition intersect, disconnect, or compliment. One political philosopher has a two culture system or way of understanding the real and the ideal. The ideal is for the common person, who must have myth to soothe their situations in life. But, the real history is for "men' who have cut their teeth on the hard discipline of discovery.
Thus, the disciplines are about the disciplined mind, which is strengthened by reality, not subsumed, or defensive toward reality. Which culture do you fit? The idealized version, or the real reality of existence in a real world?
This morning started my thinking on myth-making. As my husband and I were discussing my grandfather and his present physical needs, I recognized that human beings love to "romanticize" their history. This is why many times we like to reminisce over the "younger years". I have been told that many mothers would not choose to have any more children, if they really remembered the reality of labor. Somehow our brains release a relaxing chemical that promotes "memory loss". And sometimes there is actual medication to further that memory loss!
Myths make for stories that we tell our children and hold meaning of ideals that help further our goals. This is what I think has happened in our culture wars.
The real history we may never really know, but scholars do have some knowledge about that "real history", as they struggle to piece it together. But, those that have agendas that must be won, mythologize history to suit their purposes. The Church has always done this, as this is what theology is about.
Our culture wars are about where science and tradition intersect, disconnect, or compliment. One political philosopher has a two culture system or way of understanding the real and the ideal. The ideal is for the common person, who must have myth to soothe their situations in life. But, the real history is for "men' who have cut their teeth on the hard discipline of discovery.
Thus, the disciplines are about the disciplined mind, which is strengthened by reality, not subsumed, or defensive toward reality. Which culture do you fit? The idealized version, or the real reality of existence in a real world?
Monday, December 28, 2009
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.
Philosophy is Not Palatable to the Fundamentalist
Philosophy is how we understand or our ability to know what we know. Some think that one aspect of understanding is "all there is". But, there are many aspects of understanding and knowing about the world.
ge
Knowledge is understood as reason's ability to grasp or understand the real world in investigation and analysis. This is where the Academy excels and explores. But, reason is not the only avenue of understanding or analyzing the world.
Experience is the common person's understanding of life. Experience give wisdom to those that are open to grasp and grapple with life. But, wisdom is not an absolutist position, but a tenuable one, because experience helps to temper and tame the most ardent ideologues. But, experience without knowledge is blind in some ways and cannot speak in terms that are more palatable to larger audiences.
Religion understands itself through texts, and tradition. These help to form the culture of a society. But religion's knowledge can be damaging to others without understanding experience's wisdom and the Academy's knowledge. Religion creates the environment of society's social norms and values. Without religion then, there is little or no ability to appeal to a "higher authority" to gain a 'ear" or exert a moral influence in society in maintaining social control.
Philosophy is understanding that knowledge itself is created or formed within certain frames of reference, vision, passion, and concern. These ways of reference and vision should never be seen as absolute, otherwise, we create an environment shorn of the diversity that enlarges the world and its complexity. And whenever we limit the world and human beings in this way, we cultivate a climate that dismisses the humane for the "ideal" in "two-dimensional" universe.
ge
Knowledge is understood as reason's ability to grasp or understand the real world in investigation and analysis. This is where the Academy excels and explores. But, reason is not the only avenue of understanding or analyzing the world.
Experience is the common person's understanding of life. Experience give wisdom to those that are open to grasp and grapple with life. But, wisdom is not an absolutist position, but a tenuable one, because experience helps to temper and tame the most ardent ideologues. But, experience without knowledge is blind in some ways and cannot speak in terms that are more palatable to larger audiences.
Religion understands itself through texts, and tradition. These help to form the culture of a society. But religion's knowledge can be damaging to others without understanding experience's wisdom and the Academy's knowledge. Religion creates the environment of society's social norms and values. Without religion then, there is little or no ability to appeal to a "higher authority" to gain a 'ear" or exert a moral influence in society in maintaining social control.
Philosophy is understanding that knowledge itself is created or formed within certain frames of reference, vision, passion, and concern. These ways of reference and vision should never be seen as absolute, otherwise, we create an environment shorn of the diversity that enlarges the world and its complexity. And whenever we limit the world and human beings in this way, we cultivate a climate that dismisses the humane for the "ideal" in "two-dimensional" universe.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
The Authoritarian Relgious
I just realized when I re-read my last enty, that a religion that works like the miltary is what some deem "Christian discipleship". It is nothing more than abuse of power over individual lives, in the name of God.
Christianity's close affliation with Islam should help us understand why some would see thier Christian faith in such anti-cultural and authoritarian ways.
Sacrifice is the epitome of this type of religious conviction, as it shows how much one trusts God or is willing to serve God above all other gods. The use of Abraham in Genesis is useful to illustrate "what God requires", the sacrifice of any "hope", as the promised one, is to be the sacrifice. It is called covenant theology.
The story ends with Abraham's "trust in God' being defined by the test of sacrifice and God's provision of a "lamb" in Isaac's stead.
Christians have used this to illustrate their message of provision of a "savior", in Christ.
But, what kind of God demands sacrifice and testing to prove that He is first and foremost the most important in one's life? Does a father or mother ever think that this would be appropriate to request of a child? or a spouse? or even a friend? Is God above our understanding of common decency and care of human desires and emotion?
Some would say that God is interested in purifying our desires and our interests, as he is to be worshipped above all gods and this is the way in which his purification comes.
I think Voltaire's "Candid" would be my response. God is in control of everything therefore any danger should not be seen as a danger. Any obstacle can be removed by faith, if one only believes. Healing can come to the sick if they only have enough faith, etc....God is in Control. God intervenes, but he doesn't always answer our prayers the way that we want him to. But, what if we have requested something that must be "his will" and yet, the prayer is unanswered?
I have heard Christians defend God's "lack of response" by saying that "his ways are not our ways", "he has higher purposes or plans", "he knows best", " God works it all out in the end", " God is just, we just don't undestand everything about his justice", ad nauseum....theologizing pain, suffering, death, suicide, and other human tragedies.
The other answer is that "God is disciplining you", so that you may partake of his holiness! Thank you, but no thank you. Why is it that he "picks on some" as he is supposed to have 'no favorites, as he is no respector of persons.
So, those that hold these views believe that the only thing that is required is absolute faith or trust, withholding one's reason, in fact, reason is the enemy in these cases, because reason will supplant faith.
In the real world, those who have gotten burned when their heart was right and they trusted with all their might and they died, or they were immensely disappointed, or etc...Do these continue to go down the same road and perform the same behavior of "trust", believing somehow that they were at fault, somehow? Or do they learn that this is not the way the world works and then set out to learn what is expected in the "real world"?
I think that those who believe in this type of supernaturalism are really half crazy. I was. And I am trying to come to some sort of sanity, where reality is not disconnected from any other source of knowledge, or life experience.
I really fear for these, as they ignore the "world" thinking that the world will 'take care of itself', because these are to be separate from the world and everything in it. These miss so much of life and the joy of living.
Christianity's close affliation with Islam should help us understand why some would see thier Christian faith in such anti-cultural and authoritarian ways.
Sacrifice is the epitome of this type of religious conviction, as it shows how much one trusts God or is willing to serve God above all other gods. The use of Abraham in Genesis is useful to illustrate "what God requires", the sacrifice of any "hope", as the promised one, is to be the sacrifice. It is called covenant theology.
The story ends with Abraham's "trust in God' being defined by the test of sacrifice and God's provision of a "lamb" in Isaac's stead.
Christians have used this to illustrate their message of provision of a "savior", in Christ.
But, what kind of God demands sacrifice and testing to prove that He is first and foremost the most important in one's life? Does a father or mother ever think that this would be appropriate to request of a child? or a spouse? or even a friend? Is God above our understanding of common decency and care of human desires and emotion?
Some would say that God is interested in purifying our desires and our interests, as he is to be worshipped above all gods and this is the way in which his purification comes.
I think Voltaire's "Candid" would be my response. God is in control of everything therefore any danger should not be seen as a danger. Any obstacle can be removed by faith, if one only believes. Healing can come to the sick if they only have enough faith, etc....God is in Control. God intervenes, but he doesn't always answer our prayers the way that we want him to. But, what if we have requested something that must be "his will" and yet, the prayer is unanswered?
I have heard Christians defend God's "lack of response" by saying that "his ways are not our ways", "he has higher purposes or plans", "he knows best", " God works it all out in the end", " God is just, we just don't undestand everything about his justice", ad nauseum....theologizing pain, suffering, death, suicide, and other human tragedies.
The other answer is that "God is disciplining you", so that you may partake of his holiness! Thank you, but no thank you. Why is it that he "picks on some" as he is supposed to have 'no favorites, as he is no respector of persons.
So, those that hold these views believe that the only thing that is required is absolute faith or trust, withholding one's reason, in fact, reason is the enemy in these cases, because reason will supplant faith.
In the real world, those who have gotten burned when their heart was right and they trusted with all their might and they died, or they were immensely disappointed, or etc...Do these continue to go down the same road and perform the same behavior of "trust", believing somehow that they were at fault, somehow? Or do they learn that this is not the way the world works and then set out to learn what is expected in the "real world"?
I think that those who believe in this type of supernaturalism are really half crazy. I was. And I am trying to come to some sort of sanity, where reality is not disconnected from any other source of knowledge, or life experience.
I really fear for these, as they ignore the "world" thinking that the world will 'take care of itself', because these are to be separate from the world and everything in it. These miss so much of life and the joy of living.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Form and Symbol, as Ultimate Value
I have really come to appreciate the values that our Constitution upholds. Our Constitution is what protects our culture from anarchy and affirms individual values of expression in one's life; liberty being of primary importance.
A couple of years ago in reading about moral development, I discovered that democracy was of ultimate importance for the full development of the human. Democracy allows freedom of conscience when it comes to various ways of expressing the "symbolic" of religious tradition. This is true justice of individuality, opinion and conviction.
The symbolic is understood in faith traditions to manifest ultimate values. These values of life are universal rights to happiness, which our Founder's "formed" in our Constitution.
These values are not just represented by the myths of faith, but also social critics that "see" and understand where the culture is "missing" an element that is necessary. Cultural critics bring about the social and cultural changes that are needed in the particular society. Tradition nor materialists usually embrace such with "open arms".
The highest "ideal" our Founders understood were the values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Such values are framed in our FORM of government, where balance of power, equality under law, and our Bill of Rights gives value to each individual in making meaning of their life.
"Meaning" (symbol) many times means religion, but it does not always have to. Meaning can be made many times in free societies without religion, as one expresses what is internally important to that particular individual.
The real enemy to democracy and a free society in a Representative Republic is an exclusivity in outlook and attitude, whether it is bred on the heels of emotion-based religion, or hard-headed science.
Both science and religion speak of man, as man is a combination of intellect, emotion, and physicial being. These must all be affirmed in each individual "form", within the FORM of our government's Constitutional Republic.
A couple of years ago in reading about moral development, I discovered that democracy was of ultimate importance for the full development of the human. Democracy allows freedom of conscience when it comes to various ways of expressing the "symbolic" of religious tradition. This is true justice of individuality, opinion and conviction.
The symbolic is understood in faith traditions to manifest ultimate values. These values of life are universal rights to happiness, which our Founder's "formed" in our Constitution.
These values are not just represented by the myths of faith, but also social critics that "see" and understand where the culture is "missing" an element that is necessary. Cultural critics bring about the social and cultural changes that are needed in the particular society. Tradition nor materialists usually embrace such with "open arms".
The highest "ideal" our Founders understood were the values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Such values are framed in our FORM of government, where balance of power, equality under law, and our Bill of Rights gives value to each individual in making meaning of their life.
"Meaning" (symbol) many times means religion, but it does not always have to. Meaning can be made many times in free societies without religion, as one expresses what is internally important to that particular individual.
The real enemy to democracy and a free society in a Representative Republic is an exclusivity in outlook and attitude, whether it is bred on the heels of emotion-based religion, or hard-headed science.
Both science and religion speak of man, as man is a combination of intellect, emotion, and physicial being. These must all be affirmed in each individual "form", within the FORM of our government's Constitutional Republic.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Religion's Anesthesia
Religion creates a false reality.
Religion touts answers when the questions are too deep.
If seek them, you are not "filled with faith",
Religion hinders development because of false security.
God controls all of life, so there is no need to learn, grow, or become. You are only to "believe" and, therefore, "do".
Religion thinks it knows the absolute, when relatives are "the human".
God is the absolute for religion, and human are relatively insignificant.
Religion is the "comfort zone" for the religious, who define for everyone else, what life means, how it is to be lived, and who it is to be lived for.
These are "one size fits all" definitions.
The Religious believe that their view is the only view and their reality is the only reality.
And Yet,
Religion believes in a reality that does not exist except in one's mind. Religion is anesthesia to life.
And some call this "Real" hope!
Religion touts answers when the questions are too deep.
If seek them, you are not "filled with faith",
Religion hinders development because of false security.
God controls all of life, so there is no need to learn, grow, or become. You are only to "believe" and, therefore, "do".
Religion thinks it knows the absolute, when relatives are "the human".
God is the absolute for religion, and human are relatively insignificant.
Religion is the "comfort zone" for the religious, who define for everyone else, what life means, how it is to be lived, and who it is to be lived for.
These are "one size fits all" definitions.
The Religious believe that their view is the only view and their reality is the only reality.
And Yet,
Religion believes in a reality that does not exist except in one's mind. Religion is anesthesia to life.
And some call this "Real" hope!
Friday, April 24, 2009
Time Flies...
Today, a former student dropped by with her two children. I haven't seen her in over 5 years, as her little girl is 5! I was delighted to see her, as she was the "same" and yet, different!
I met her 9 years ago. She was pretty insecure. I remember one night when we were having a heated family discussion at the dinner table (a debate), she quietly got up and got her Bible and held it close to her chest. It reminded me of how literally she took the text, as if she was defending her beliefs with her "sword". She felt threatened and uncertain, as each of us challenged the other's views.
Today, she is confident and almost poised. She talked as an equal and it really amazed me what life can do. She is a wonderful young woman and mother.
Many times I think that this is what religion and scripture does. It "empowers" those who think they have "no power". But, it is not living in the "real world", but an imaginary one. And it certainly does not alleviate personal, mental, or personality problems, but covers over them. But, even so, these people are humans that have an ability to come out of their "holes" of confinement.
She told me something that really blessed me. She said that she was so grateful for all the things I taught her. I questioned her, as I abhor "formal mentoring" (like, come look at me and I'll teach you a few things!). I "mentored" her, I guess, by sharing my life and being a 'friend". She saw me as very human. She said that what I told her always stuck with her through these years. Life teaches you and so, relax, as life happens.
That is like saying that the "sky is blue". Life consists of time that flies, and as one views it in hindsight, it has much wisdom.
Tomorrow our youngest son graduates from college. It was just yesterday, or so it seems, that I was hearing him shout, as he closed the door on the way to school, "Bye, Mom!" What a joy.
Our older son is getting married in September and I cannot believe that is is now in his mid-20's. I look at my husband and he doesn't look much older, as he was our son's age when we first met!
My daughter has already been married for 4 years, this June, and now has two children! I can hardly believe she is approaching 30! It reminds me of the song, "Sunrise, Sunset"...quickly go the years.....laden with happiness and tears....when did she get to be a beauty, when did he get to be so tall....seemed like yesterday when they were small!
We will all celebrate tomorrow, and remember that life teaches you. Sometimes, no one understands, unless they have experienced it. Problem is; who is the "formal mentor" who can assuredly say, "look at me, and I'll teach you a few things"? There are mentors all around, if one has eyes to see, and ears to hear!
I met her 9 years ago. She was pretty insecure. I remember one night when we were having a heated family discussion at the dinner table (a debate), she quietly got up and got her Bible and held it close to her chest. It reminded me of how literally she took the text, as if she was defending her beliefs with her "sword". She felt threatened and uncertain, as each of us challenged the other's views.
Today, she is confident and almost poised. She talked as an equal and it really amazed me what life can do. She is a wonderful young woman and mother.
Many times I think that this is what religion and scripture does. It "empowers" those who think they have "no power". But, it is not living in the "real world", but an imaginary one. And it certainly does not alleviate personal, mental, or personality problems, but covers over them. But, even so, these people are humans that have an ability to come out of their "holes" of confinement.
She told me something that really blessed me. She said that she was so grateful for all the things I taught her. I questioned her, as I abhor "formal mentoring" (like, come look at me and I'll teach you a few things!). I "mentored" her, I guess, by sharing my life and being a 'friend". She saw me as very human. She said that what I told her always stuck with her through these years. Life teaches you and so, relax, as life happens.
That is like saying that the "sky is blue". Life consists of time that flies, and as one views it in hindsight, it has much wisdom.
Tomorrow our youngest son graduates from college. It was just yesterday, or so it seems, that I was hearing him shout, as he closed the door on the way to school, "Bye, Mom!" What a joy.
Our older son is getting married in September and I cannot believe that is is now in his mid-20's. I look at my husband and he doesn't look much older, as he was our son's age when we first met!
My daughter has already been married for 4 years, this June, and now has two children! I can hardly believe she is approaching 30! It reminds me of the song, "Sunrise, Sunset"...quickly go the years.....laden with happiness and tears....when did she get to be a beauty, when did he get to be so tall....seemed like yesterday when they were small!
We will all celebrate tomorrow, and remember that life teaches you. Sometimes, no one understands, unless they have experienced it. Problem is; who is the "formal mentor" who can assuredly say, "look at me, and I'll teach you a few things"? There are mentors all around, if one has eyes to see, and ears to hear!
Friday, April 10, 2009
The Great Debate Today
The great debate today is whether there is a "supernatural gospel" or if the gospel is to be understood in naturalistic ways....and some believe there is a third way of reconciling the two, using science to investigate people and cultures. While one seeks to restore the image of God within man by freeing man from religion and helping him be "more human", the other seeks the "Christian Gospel" as the meta-narrative for the world at large. One affirms an exclusivist claim, while the other allows a plurality of views and voices.
Humans are social beings, which means that we understand and address issues, questions and understandings about life within social contexts. History is built by these social interactions. It is no less true of those who lived in biblical times. In fact, more so, as they were an oral and tribal culture.
Conservative evangleicals believe that there is something "supernatural"about the "gospel" and call it the "holy spirit". While humans do respond to messages that inspire the human heart, there is nothing "supernatural" about this, as a political message can inspire and motivate as much as a sermon.
Humans create their meanings and understand their lives by formulating "stories" that identify their "communities". This is a postmodern paradigm and leaves out the science of understanding the "why" and "how" of individual humans.
Moral development of the individual and society has been understood to be furtherd within "communities", but is not the highest attainment of the individual. The individual has to come to an individuality or "self" identification and must be allowed the freedom of choice beyond communities of "faith". Reason develops to a point of choice of commitment that identifies the person with the values they hold most dearly.
While reason and commitment is the epitome of moral and intellectual development, faith development is recognized in symbolic forms or ways. "Faith communities" are conventional level of moral develpment, where "moral models" are held to be the epitome of "community formation" and identification. Whereas, a more advanced faith development allows for diversity of viewpoints, acknowledging the fallability of all absolute claims to the transcendent.
I find that supernaturalistic claims to a faith without any development of reason to be not only misguided, but dangerous for the individual and communities. These are cults, which are bent on radicalizing their understanding without balancing thier faith with rationale.
America has allowed the freedom of conscience in regards to religion. The problem for America today is the dissolution of the family, where the child is taught the values, either directly or indirectly, of character. Children have little guidance or mentoring because of absentee parents, and the culture, as a whole has left the values that traditon maintains.
So, the Great Debate is settled in my mind. We are human and we must become "more human" by admitting our needs, fallabilities, and faults. These can only be rectified within a culture that allows for socialbility and not measured by success.
Unfortunatley, our culture has suffered due to the American Dream and its pursuit. This has damaged marriages, families, and individuals because we have sought fame and fortune at the expense of responsibility and commitment. Our moral climate is at an all time low because of it. And the stories we tell in America today are stories about "moral demise" and not "moral success".
Humans are social beings, which means that we understand and address issues, questions and understandings about life within social contexts. History is built by these social interactions. It is no less true of those who lived in biblical times. In fact, more so, as they were an oral and tribal culture.
Conservative evangleicals believe that there is something "supernatural"about the "gospel" and call it the "holy spirit". While humans do respond to messages that inspire the human heart, there is nothing "supernatural" about this, as a political message can inspire and motivate as much as a sermon.
Humans create their meanings and understand their lives by formulating "stories" that identify their "communities". This is a postmodern paradigm and leaves out the science of understanding the "why" and "how" of individual humans.
Moral development of the individual and society has been understood to be furtherd within "communities", but is not the highest attainment of the individual. The individual has to come to an individuality or "self" identification and must be allowed the freedom of choice beyond communities of "faith". Reason develops to a point of choice of commitment that identifies the person with the values they hold most dearly.
While reason and commitment is the epitome of moral and intellectual development, faith development is recognized in symbolic forms or ways. "Faith communities" are conventional level of moral develpment, where "moral models" are held to be the epitome of "community formation" and identification. Whereas, a more advanced faith development allows for diversity of viewpoints, acknowledging the fallability of all absolute claims to the transcendent.
I find that supernaturalistic claims to a faith without any development of reason to be not only misguided, but dangerous for the individual and communities. These are cults, which are bent on radicalizing their understanding without balancing thier faith with rationale.
America has allowed the freedom of conscience in regards to religion. The problem for America today is the dissolution of the family, where the child is taught the values, either directly or indirectly, of character. Children have little guidance or mentoring because of absentee parents, and the culture, as a whole has left the values that traditon maintains.
So, the Great Debate is settled in my mind. We are human and we must become "more human" by admitting our needs, fallabilities, and faults. These can only be rectified within a culture that allows for socialbility and not measured by success.
Unfortunatley, our culture has suffered due to the American Dream and its pursuit. This has damaged marriages, families, and individuals because we have sought fame and fortune at the expense of responsibility and commitment. Our moral climate is at an all time low because of it. And the stories we tell in America today are stories about "moral demise" and not "moral success".
Monday, March 30, 2009
A Continued Thinking on Individualism and Collectivism
Collectivism and Individualism does not just "run" our understanding of government, or policy, but also theology.
How we understand the Church has been based on these understandings, if not directly, then presuppositionally.
Is the Church a social organization? Is the Church a "living organism"? Is membership in the Church dependent on individual choice and/or faith, or is Church membership about what "form" is required of the religious hierarchy, the traditions of the Church? Or is being a member of the Church dependent on what one does or believes, or both? Is faith dependent on or independent from organized religion and/or social intereaction?
Is the text, in a religious Tradition to be approached by the individual or the magisterum? Is the individual's devotional practice and/or personal experience to be valued? Or is submission to authority structure important in affirming one's faith?
All of these understandings and their value has formed our Traditions within Christian faith, and I think forms most organized religions. Faith itself is larger than religion, as faith is about persoal values. These values can be defined by religion, but don't have to be, they can also be defined on reason, which sometimes challenges traditional understandings of "belief systems".
Atonement theories are based on understandings of Jesus death. The meanings of these theories is like any other theory "a form of understanding and meaning making" in any discipline.
I find that the progress of natural science and our undertandng of man's understanding of the world in general, in every discipline, challenges certain traditional assumptions. This is where the broader and wider discussion on how, what, where and when policy should be made. These policy thinkers live in our "think tanks", and they hold the brightest amongst us. We should be thankful for these think tanks that question, struggle and help our government and the public to understand the issues, th questions, and the decisions of our policy makers! Then, there is a balance of power to government by the intellectual elite. But, who holds the intellectural elite accountable?
How we understand the Church has been based on these understandings, if not directly, then presuppositionally.
Is the Church a social organization? Is the Church a "living organism"? Is membership in the Church dependent on individual choice and/or faith, or is Church membership about what "form" is required of the religious hierarchy, the traditions of the Church? Or is being a member of the Church dependent on what one does or believes, or both? Is faith dependent on or independent from organized religion and/or social intereaction?
Is the text, in a religious Tradition to be approached by the individual or the magisterum? Is the individual's devotional practice and/or personal experience to be valued? Or is submission to authority structure important in affirming one's faith?
All of these understandings and their value has formed our Traditions within Christian faith, and I think forms most organized religions. Faith itself is larger than religion, as faith is about persoal values. These values can be defined by religion, but don't have to be, they can also be defined on reason, which sometimes challenges traditional understandings of "belief systems".
Atonement theories are based on understandings of Jesus death. The meanings of these theories is like any other theory "a form of understanding and meaning making" in any discipline.
I find that the progress of natural science and our undertandng of man's understanding of the world in general, in every discipline, challenges certain traditional assumptions. This is where the broader and wider discussion on how, what, where and when policy should be made. These policy thinkers live in our "think tanks", and they hold the brightest amongst us. We should be thankful for these think tanks that question, struggle and help our government and the public to understand the issues, th questions, and the decisions of our policy makers! Then, there is a balance of power to government by the intellectual elite. But, who holds the intellectural elite accountable?
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Ethics and Science in Stem Cell Research
Because of the recent commitment of our president to stem cell research, there has been much discussion about science and ethics. Our president suggested that stem cell research was not to be determined on an ideological commitment, but on the "facts of science".
While I believe that science has added to our quality of life, science should not function without a proper ideological frame, which are the ethical questions. Many on TV, radio and in the paper were talking about the struggle between science and ethics. Science does not answer any "moral question", it just "works". But, should our society condone anything that "works"? Pragmatism is the road to expediency, but not the road to wisdom.
Stem cell research holds much promise for those who suffer from many diseases, so this area of research would breed much "good". The ethical questions are based on questions that cannot be solved quickly, if at all, and only divide all of us along ideological lines. So, why attempt to answer any ethical questions when science's expediency in meeting human need is of primary importance? Isn't human suffering something that we all should be committed to? But, at what costs?
I have written before about the questions concerning genetic research, and some of the same questions apply to stem cell research. Who will determine when an embryo has become a separate life? And how will that be determined? Will each case pose the question and allow the individual woman the choice, such as we do with organ transplants? Is the embryo to be viewed as an "organ", part of a woman's body, that might give life to another? Organs must be taken from the donor while the donor is alive for the organ to be fully functioning. Our state license bureaus ask us whether we want to be an organ donor when we get our driving lincense. If we agree to be an organ donor, then we are giving our living consent for our organs to be used for a 'greater purpose" of saving another life. Is this wrong to allow the individual a choice? I don't think so.
Many religious believe that to give any person the right to choose is a "sin" against God, since God is the giver of life. But, when does God give life, at the moment of conception? at the moment of birth? at the moment of the heart-beat? at the moment of brain waves? at the moment of viability? When? These questions are not easily answered.
I think more importantly is who will determine when life "happens", as the political realm must remain "free" for choice, otherwise, we have political or religious authorities determining for the individual what is "best". Either way, we will be setting up our public forum for ideological war. Personal decision is of utmost importance, such as we allow with organ donation. This personal decision should not be made without all information, or deep reflection, as we must be convinced in our own minds. The separation of Church and State is commenable in this arena as well.
While I believe that science has added to our quality of life, science should not function without a proper ideological frame, which are the ethical questions. Many on TV, radio and in the paper were talking about the struggle between science and ethics. Science does not answer any "moral question", it just "works". But, should our society condone anything that "works"? Pragmatism is the road to expediency, but not the road to wisdom.
Stem cell research holds much promise for those who suffer from many diseases, so this area of research would breed much "good". The ethical questions are based on questions that cannot be solved quickly, if at all, and only divide all of us along ideological lines. So, why attempt to answer any ethical questions when science's expediency in meeting human need is of primary importance? Isn't human suffering something that we all should be committed to? But, at what costs?
I have written before about the questions concerning genetic research, and some of the same questions apply to stem cell research. Who will determine when an embryo has become a separate life? And how will that be determined? Will each case pose the question and allow the individual woman the choice, such as we do with organ transplants? Is the embryo to be viewed as an "organ", part of a woman's body, that might give life to another? Organs must be taken from the donor while the donor is alive for the organ to be fully functioning. Our state license bureaus ask us whether we want to be an organ donor when we get our driving lincense. If we agree to be an organ donor, then we are giving our living consent for our organs to be used for a 'greater purpose" of saving another life. Is this wrong to allow the individual a choice? I don't think so.
Many religious believe that to give any person the right to choose is a "sin" against God, since God is the giver of life. But, when does God give life, at the moment of conception? at the moment of birth? at the moment of the heart-beat? at the moment of brain waves? at the moment of viability? When? These questions are not easily answered.
I think more importantly is who will determine when life "happens", as the political realm must remain "free" for choice, otherwise, we have political or religious authorities determining for the individual what is "best". Either way, we will be setting up our public forum for ideological war. Personal decision is of utmost importance, such as we allow with organ donation. This personal decision should not be made without all information, or deep reflection, as we must be convinced in our own minds. The separation of Church and State is commenable in this arena as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
