I am "just thinking" today, as I have no "scholarly wisdom" from scholars, but I am analyzing my own behavior and thinking about what drives it.
The will of man is the seat of choice, goals and determination. But, if the will is not "enlightened", it will be misguided or controlled by others or limited by oneself. The more information that is available to us at a given time or throughout our life is of value in "enlightening" ourselves against foolishness and superstition, as well as making us responsible citizens. This is one reason why Americans are to be informed of their representative's goals or commitments and their government's "process" of discussing the issues regarding legislation.
The individual's will chooses what is of ultimate value and commits to what is of most importance. No one can do this "work" for another, unless one wants to engage in "social engineering" that limits and manipulates information. Propaganda does "control", but it does not free, or "enlighten" the individual to fulfill his highest potential or help the individual to develop critical thinking skills. Critical thinking skills are important in determining goals and ultimate values and commitments.
Whenever one encounters situations, circumstances or "systems" that "attack" values that are of ultimate importance, then, one's will becomes engaged in a "battle" of sorts. The battle is for what is of ultimate concern for that individual. One cannot deny what he finds most important and will forsake other values, for his ultimate one.I have found that an ultimate value for me is liberty.
Liberty is of ultimate concern because without it, people cannot seek their own lives, but live for another's values or ultimate concerns. This is enslavement to another and it is something modern minds abhor. Freedom of choice is what we uphold in free societies because we value individuality. "Social concerns" become secondary to the individual, because the individual or the particular is the epitome of "truth". Human rights and our Bill of Rights are protective of the individual.
Some Christians would think that one's "ultimate concern" should be what is written within the text of scripture. The "ulitmate goal" is to "love God and love neighbor". But, can we love others when we deny our own values and "ultimate concerns"? Some would think that this is what love is and does. But, love does not demand of another that kind of sacrifice to "prove" love. One can only "do" and "commit" to what one "knows" to be of value. This is why becoming informed is of most importance, otherwise, one might think they are "doing good", when in actuality, they are "doing evil" by imposing their views on another.
These Christians believe that Scripture reveals what "God's will" is about "the Kingdom" and what we should desire in being "one". We, as individuals should "submit" to "corporate" identification, so that "God's Kingdom" will "come on earth. But where in the "oneness" is diversity? Something is lost without diversity. I stand on the side of diversity and individuality.
Why is "the Church" of more importance than the individual, himself/herself? "The Church" is only one means of "doing good" and is never the end, itself. Isn't the development of an individual child, student, or young adult of more importance than an institutional sturcture that "speaks for God"?
I don't think I am really any different than a "secular humanist" and some atheists, or agnostics, I have read. I believe in the individual's right of "free speech", "free thought", etc. I probably appear to be "rebellious" to the "faithful" because I resist and resent "groupism" that is found in Christian circles. And I probably don't "fit" well with those who are commited to "social responsibility", as the "liberal", because even as I am committed to individual freedom, I cannot be committed to that radical kind of liberty, if I am not committed to it for myself, as well.
So, my will resists "teams" that play without all players "on board", informed and engaged. This is the problem with the "healthcare program". And when we see people fighting for their right to be heard, we are seeing the downfall of one of our countries' greatest values, Liberty. Without liberty, there will be no justice.
Showing posts with label social responsibility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social responsibility. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
The Atrocious Injustice of Jesus' Life
Jesus is known to the Christian community to be exemplary of "faith". Various affirmations of his life have defined the Christian community from the literalization of his death as an atoning sacrifice to an exempliary life lived in service to others.
I find that generally the upholding of Jesus life as an example, whether of faith or "duty" can be useful for social purposes. But, if one thinks about what justice should mean, his life was the epitome of injustice. Shouldn't men be interested in justice for the individual?
Jesus lived his life under obedience, first and foremost to "God". "God" decided for him what was to be done and how it was to be done. This is known as Jesus' "Passion". It was not Jesus' will, but God's that was of uptmost importance. Is martyrdom the necessary "duty" of the "faithful"? I think this is absurd and subverts the understanding of justice in a modern society, where justice is known to be for the individual's right to choose, and be free from such conforming and "unjust""standards".
Those who suggest that Jesus' life was one historical life among many that have changed the world, are more realistic and grounded. Theology has served the pusposes of the Church's self-interest. Nothing is wrong with self-preservation, but not at the expense of others, as this is the height of immoraility. People must be free to be informed and know what their life is to be committed to. And this is the "ideal" of justice in a free society.
I find that generally the upholding of Jesus life as an example, whether of faith or "duty" can be useful for social purposes. But, if one thinks about what justice should mean, his life was the epitome of injustice. Shouldn't men be interested in justice for the individual?
Jesus lived his life under obedience, first and foremost to "God". "God" decided for him what was to be done and how it was to be done. This is known as Jesus' "Passion". It was not Jesus' will, but God's that was of uptmost importance. Is martyrdom the necessary "duty" of the "faithful"? I think this is absurd and subverts the understanding of justice in a modern society, where justice is known to be for the individual's right to choose, and be free from such conforming and "unjust""standards".
Those who suggest that Jesus' life was one historical life among many that have changed the world, are more realistic and grounded. Theology has served the pusposes of the Church's self-interest. Nothing is wrong with self-preservation, but not at the expense of others, as this is the height of immoraility. People must be free to be informed and know what their life is to be committed to. And this is the "ideal" of justice in a free society.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Reagan's Legacy; Political and Religious Freedom
The mention of Ronald Reagan's name raises ire or admiration, depending on one's ideology. But, no one can deny that his presidency left a large legacy that remains to this day.
Reagan was the "ideal" of conservative values of individualism, determination, hard work, limited government and freedom. He inspired the conservative views of American values, while his commitment to humor dissolved defences of his opponents (at the time). His legacy ran the gamut from the economic crisis left by the Carter adminstration, the freeing of the Iranian hostages, to the call for "tearing down the wall" between Eastern and Western Germany.
His ideals of freedom and justice for all, his optimistic outlook, and eternal hope in the American dream and dependence on American values were the driving and determining commitment of his presidentcy.
I find that the human heart cannot live without vision, dream or ideals, which inspire the individual to accomplish and attempt to attain a 'better way of life". The human heart was what Reagan appealed to.
I find that the socialistic enterprise whether in government or organizations tend to leave the human heart burdened by "mandates of "resposible behavior". Social responsibility is a good value, but cannot be "mandated" without hindering or limiting individual freedom. Freedom is the first and foremost responsibility of any good government. Freedom allows the market to flourish as it rewards those who have goals of business prosperity, as well as the individuals who choose a different way of life.
An ideology of materialism cannot be the basis of any government, while freedom can. Governments based on materialism, whether absolutizing the free market or social responsibility is a short sighted view to the 'common good". While alligning the free market for the benefit of the social may be productive to the material well-being of the government or organization, it limits individual choice and rewards those who have shown personal irresponsibility.
While personal freedom is the first responsibility of a good government, there should be a balance of power in understanding that no one has the "full" or "right" view of the future. And universalizing "social concern" does not make the proper distinctions about who is truly worthy of help, without enabling those who want to be social parasites.
I loved Reagan. He inspired my heart every time I listened to him. He was transparent, direct, and honest about his values. He did not have an attitude of arrogant "etlite-ism", as he always made comments of humor that balanced his "statements of commitment" with humor and grace.
I thought of him this morning and smiled.
Reagan was the "ideal" of conservative values of individualism, determination, hard work, limited government and freedom. He inspired the conservative views of American values, while his commitment to humor dissolved defences of his opponents (at the time). His legacy ran the gamut from the economic crisis left by the Carter adminstration, the freeing of the Iranian hostages, to the call for "tearing down the wall" between Eastern and Western Germany.
His ideals of freedom and justice for all, his optimistic outlook, and eternal hope in the American dream and dependence on American values were the driving and determining commitment of his presidentcy.
I find that the human heart cannot live without vision, dream or ideals, which inspire the individual to accomplish and attempt to attain a 'better way of life". The human heart was what Reagan appealed to.
I find that the socialistic enterprise whether in government or organizations tend to leave the human heart burdened by "mandates of "resposible behavior". Social responsibility is a good value, but cannot be "mandated" without hindering or limiting individual freedom. Freedom is the first and foremost responsibility of any good government. Freedom allows the market to flourish as it rewards those who have goals of business prosperity, as well as the individuals who choose a different way of life.
An ideology of materialism cannot be the basis of any government, while freedom can. Governments based on materialism, whether absolutizing the free market or social responsibility is a short sighted view to the 'common good". While alligning the free market for the benefit of the social may be productive to the material well-being of the government or organization, it limits individual choice and rewards those who have shown personal irresponsibility.
While personal freedom is the first responsibility of a good government, there should be a balance of power in understanding that no one has the "full" or "right" view of the future. And universalizing "social concern" does not make the proper distinctions about who is truly worthy of help, without enabling those who want to be social parasites.
I loved Reagan. He inspired my heart every time I listened to him. He was transparent, direct, and honest about his values. He did not have an attitude of arrogant "etlite-ism", as he always made comments of humor that balanced his "statements of commitment" with humor and grace.
I thought of him this morning and smiled.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Our Political Frame Forms "Our Evil"
I am more and more of the opinion that our two party system, though good, as it "simplifies" some issues, is also at a danger of being counter-productive for other purposes.
Today America's "two party" system has been diminished by the majority held, not only in Congress, but also in our executive branch. This situations limits our two party (or two perspective) system to a one party or one perspective system. The danger is the lack of balance to power in policy formation. Ideological differences can be a good thing as it brings humility to each perspective, and it brings about negotiation, compromise, which represents a more "wholistic view" to our system of government.
The capitalistic free market system is the commitment of the Republican party. Their interests lie in business, production, and tradition. While the Republicans, for the most part believe in family values, and the Protestant work ethic, the Democrats believe in moral responsibility, the social gospel and the "common good". This view simplifies what can be personal differences of value in fiscal responsibility, social responsibility, familial responsibility, and moral responsibility. We will all understand the responsibilities we have in this life differently, as we defend and define our lives on the freedom to understand and live those differences, without judgement form 'outside interference". These differences are the very freedoms we value as Americans and we must defend them at all costs, otherwise, we are headed toward a regime or government that will circumvent individuality, difference, innovation, creativity, and limit our ability to enjoy and choose our vocations.
Evil, then is identified by the 'other position holding sway over our understanding of value. Americans, fortunately, have a re-dress from a determination of individual values, which are our civil liberties.
Today America's "two party" system has been diminished by the majority held, not only in Congress, but also in our executive branch. This situations limits our two party (or two perspective) system to a one party or one perspective system. The danger is the lack of balance to power in policy formation. Ideological differences can be a good thing as it brings humility to each perspective, and it brings about negotiation, compromise, which represents a more "wholistic view" to our system of government.
The capitalistic free market system is the commitment of the Republican party. Their interests lie in business, production, and tradition. While the Republicans, for the most part believe in family values, and the Protestant work ethic, the Democrats believe in moral responsibility, the social gospel and the "common good". This view simplifies what can be personal differences of value in fiscal responsibility, social responsibility, familial responsibility, and moral responsibility. We will all understand the responsibilities we have in this life differently, as we defend and define our lives on the freedom to understand and live those differences, without judgement form 'outside interference". These differences are the very freedoms we value as Americans and we must defend them at all costs, otherwise, we are headed toward a regime or government that will circumvent individuality, difference, innovation, creativity, and limit our ability to enjoy and choose our vocations.
Evil, then is identified by the 'other position holding sway over our understanding of value. Americans, fortunately, have a re-dress from a determination of individual values, which are our civil liberties.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Social Responsibility Within a Political Frame
Politics drives what policy is heard, considered and how and if it is implemented. Our free society allows any and every voice to be heard, at least in theory. This is important not just for self-interest, but also for the interest of "freedom' in the political realm. Without all being represented, then there will be an oppression of a voice, or a people.
When Obama won the presidentcy, the whole world was elated over the possibility of equality, opprotunity for social change where all voices could be heard. The human heart is like that, it enjoys its freedom. But, freedom that is taken for granted may soon be lost. This is why the military is important. The military watches over our interests abroad and ensures that our ideals of a democratic form of government is won for others. The conflict comes over how that is won.
The individual is the epitome of responsible action, as responsibility cannot be gauged in a corporate way. Political ideologies vie for a hearing in how we think it best to bring about the right or proper society. The society cannot flourish if the individual holds no sense of responsibilty toward our freedoms, as freedom depends on responsible character.
Character is where the individual believes and chooses for the best "outcome". These choices do consider what values are to be upheld, as it is often times not a straight forward decision, but a weighing of what is of most importance. It is wrong for others to make judgments about motivations when judgments are made with personal values in mind. These values may differ from another's and this is where it becomes a question of agreement and cooperation, or of disagreement and a parting of the ways. There is often no "right or wrong", but a matter of personal "tastes".
Many would like to "sell" thier political agenda with phrases that play upon social responsibility. If a person is a person of character, then, the person's commitments will not be shaken with such tactics, as these commitments are already settled. It is only when there has been a lack of commitment or a lack of self-reflection that a crisis becomes the call to commitment of the values of most importance.
Those who have the priviledge to live in free societies should take an active interest in what their government is doing and stands for. This is where the civic meets the moral. And sometimes that means activism.
When Obama won the presidentcy, the whole world was elated over the possibility of equality, opprotunity for social change where all voices could be heard. The human heart is like that, it enjoys its freedom. But, freedom that is taken for granted may soon be lost. This is why the military is important. The military watches over our interests abroad and ensures that our ideals of a democratic form of government is won for others. The conflict comes over how that is won.
The individual is the epitome of responsible action, as responsibility cannot be gauged in a corporate way. Political ideologies vie for a hearing in how we think it best to bring about the right or proper society. The society cannot flourish if the individual holds no sense of responsibilty toward our freedoms, as freedom depends on responsible character.
Character is where the individual believes and chooses for the best "outcome". These choices do consider what values are to be upheld, as it is often times not a straight forward decision, but a weighing of what is of most importance. It is wrong for others to make judgments about motivations when judgments are made with personal values in mind. These values may differ from another's and this is where it becomes a question of agreement and cooperation, or of disagreement and a parting of the ways. There is often no "right or wrong", but a matter of personal "tastes".
Many would like to "sell" thier political agenda with phrases that play upon social responsibility. If a person is a person of character, then, the person's commitments will not be shaken with such tactics, as these commitments are already settled. It is only when there has been a lack of commitment or a lack of self-reflection that a crisis becomes the call to commitment of the values of most importance.
Those who have the priviledge to live in free societies should take an active interest in what their government is doing and stands for. This is where the civic meets the moral. And sometimes that means activism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
