The news reported this morning that a Muslim owned bank in Michigan would
do business according to "shairhia law'. The concern was over the "trojan horses" attached to this banking business in their lending practices. The question is one of discrimination, morality and law and it concerns our Constitution, and form of government, as well as our experience of life.
Does a business have a "religious right" to "freedom"? We have legislated that religious institutions are free from taxation, as we believe in the separation of Church and State. But, do the politically-motivated religious have a right to "do business" with "strings attached"? Can a Muslim business use "shairh'ia" law to discriminate about the use of the money loaned? In other words, can these religious/political banks limit the use of the money and determine so, by "shairh'ia" arbitrators?
My husband doesn't think that our country would allow the discrimination under shairh'ia, but many have been concerned about the religious freedom of Christians. Now, it seems, that if religious freedom is allowed for the Christian, then there should be no discrimination toward Islam, either. But, at what costs? Islam is a politicized religion. Their religion does no allow for freedom of conscience. This is troubling, as our whole understanding and system of government was formed around "a freedom of conscience". How can we, as a nation, tolerate the intolerant?
I'm sure lawyers, civil libertarians, and political philosophers have been hard at work in thinking through these complex issues. At what point does business intrude into another's political "conscience". Today's need is not one of religious freedom so much as political freedom. Without political freedom, there is no religious freedom, no matter what a theologian says!
Monday, March 9, 2009
Friday, March 6, 2009
Questions Concerning Priorities
One wonders this morning about what matters most, when the Market has fallen to the lowest point in 12 years, and the unemployment rate may reach 8% by the end of the day, and the President is "concerned" over our healthcare!
The President suggests that our economy is at an all time low because of healthcare costs! With no support for the Secretary of the Treasury, and little talk of Wall Street's concerns, it is obvious to most that this adminstration's philosophy of government is at odds with the "private sector". People have lost money in retirement investmensts, universities, charities, and other investors have lost in their endowments. The future is not focused on business interests, as GM struggles to remain afloat as many have already declared bandruptcy.
I'm sure those in Congress, and others in power are not concerned over this economic crisis, as they do not have to worry about their "daily bread". Hopefully, Obama will choose to see those who he promised to 'protect" under the Constitution and veto this stimulus bill.
I don't write this because of personal interests in investments, as that is not my or my husband's job concerns. But, I do write it as a concern for the discussion and balance of the philosophical positions that play out in our policy.
The President suggests that our economy is at an all time low because of healthcare costs! With no support for the Secretary of the Treasury, and little talk of Wall Street's concerns, it is obvious to most that this adminstration's philosophy of government is at odds with the "private sector". People have lost money in retirement investmensts, universities, charities, and other investors have lost in their endowments. The future is not focused on business interests, as GM struggles to remain afloat as many have already declared bandruptcy.
I'm sure those in Congress, and others in power are not concerned over this economic crisis, as they do not have to worry about their "daily bread". Hopefully, Obama will choose to see those who he promised to 'protect" under the Constitution and veto this stimulus bill.
I don't write this because of personal interests in investments, as that is not my or my husband's job concerns. But, I do write it as a concern for the discussion and balance of the philosophical positions that play out in our policy.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Abraham Lincoln's Impact on My Thoughts
Today was my friend's birthday, and so, we decided to visit the National Portrait Gallery, where they have special exhibit honoring Abraham Lincoln.
As I read about his life as president, and looked at the pictures, I couldn't help but think of what principles his life laid bare. He was committed to "a universal rights of men", as "all mean were created equal". He felt he was the "bearer" of our Founding Father's vision. And though he did not want to see the inevitable conflict between the North and the South, he lived to see the conflict end in "war". But, the end of the war resulted in his vision, and he got to pronounce the "abolition of slavery".
His life was cut short by an assasin's bullet, just after his second inaugeration. His assasin did not see that the "war had won" any better society, he only saw a man that stood in the way to his way of life.
I found myself reflecting back over one of my professor's musing over Lincoln's life. In his opinion, Lincoln created a centralized government. He did not give room for a division over slavery, as he was committed to unity. States had no right over the "United States". Federalism was born. But, the problem with centralization of government is the balance of power, which the states bring. Each state is given senators (equal representation) and representatives (numerical represetation) to help give an equal opportunity to the state's interests and the people's interests. The federal government is composed of these diverse interests. But, what happens, as in our world today, when global interest play into our sphere of concern?
These prinicples are not easy ones to address, as people are convinced differently as to which "side" is best. Do states have rights at the costs of federal interests? (think education, or other laws)...the same principle holds true for the individual and society. Do individuals have rights against corporate, society or group interests? Where do we draw our lines, and understand how these rights and interests intersect?
There is no simple solution to these concerns, as there is no balance of power as it concerns the world scene. And there is no divying up the different interests groups, when nations, cultures, and interests, collide. Religion only complicates these concerns to those seeking solution for unity. The fundamentally zealous are not open to diversity, where it concerns unity. Bad news for political solutions.
I don't know enough about foreign policy or international relations to come to any conclusion. I am reading, listening and learning. Any opinions or comments are welcome.
As I read about his life as president, and looked at the pictures, I couldn't help but think of what principles his life laid bare. He was committed to "a universal rights of men", as "all mean were created equal". He felt he was the "bearer" of our Founding Father's vision. And though he did not want to see the inevitable conflict between the North and the South, he lived to see the conflict end in "war". But, the end of the war resulted in his vision, and he got to pronounce the "abolition of slavery".
His life was cut short by an assasin's bullet, just after his second inaugeration. His assasin did not see that the "war had won" any better society, he only saw a man that stood in the way to his way of life.
I found myself reflecting back over one of my professor's musing over Lincoln's life. In his opinion, Lincoln created a centralized government. He did not give room for a division over slavery, as he was committed to unity. States had no right over the "United States". Federalism was born. But, the problem with centralization of government is the balance of power, which the states bring. Each state is given senators (equal representation) and representatives (numerical represetation) to help give an equal opportunity to the state's interests and the people's interests. The federal government is composed of these diverse interests. But, what happens, as in our world today, when global interest play into our sphere of concern?
These prinicples are not easy ones to address, as people are convinced differently as to which "side" is best. Do states have rights at the costs of federal interests? (think education, or other laws)...the same principle holds true for the individual and society. Do individuals have rights against corporate, society or group interests? Where do we draw our lines, and understand how these rights and interests intersect?
There is no simple solution to these concerns, as there is no balance of power as it concerns the world scene. And there is no divying up the different interests groups, when nations, cultures, and interests, collide. Religion only complicates these concerns to those seeking solution for unity. The fundamentally zealous are not open to diversity, where it concerns unity. Bad news for political solutions.
I don't know enough about foreign policy or international relations to come to any conclusion. I am reading, listening and learning. Any opinions or comments are welcome.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Connections That Make One Wonder....
We are here in D.C. again, and while driving back from work my husband heard on a local station that Obama was to appoint a man for "intelligence analyst" that had connections to Saudi Arabia. Intelligence, our intelligence, could be undermined, when conflicts of interest, such as this exists.
Maybe Obama doesn't think that these "new friends" pose a threat to our security, but how can there not be a conflict of interest, when it comes to "connections" ? Will Muslims who defend their own with their very lives, at the costs of the "infidel's life" to be trusted with our intelligence? Maybe this is the point, we should be making friends with those who have connections to our political "enemies". Then, our "new friends" can have the conflict, in choosing to support us, and not, them. And, perhaps, the hope is that these "new friends" can vouch for us, defend our reputation to the "enemy", so that we can live in peace and security and not fear the amassing of WMD. But, can we trust those whose vision, and purpose is political control of the whole earth, under Shairia law? I am glad that Gert Wilders was allowed to come to show his film about Islam to Congress just recently.
I am, of course, speculating, but when one looks at the Obama cabinet, it looks like a re-creation of the Clintion cabinet, minus Janet Reno. Remember Reno? What about Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill? I remember what was talked about in the Washington Times, when the Bush cabinet moved into the White House. The place was a disaster. There seemed to be little respect toward our government and its property.
Remember the Lincolm bedroom? And the pictures taken of Clinton with drug lords, criminals other questionables? What about the illegal immigrants that were hoarded into immigration offices to be "nationalized" before the election? Many were criminals.
It is so ironic that Obama can write a letter to Russia requesting their help with Iran, if we take out the missile defense in Poland and yet, Rush Limbaugh can make a statement about his disagreement with the philosophy of this adminstration and not hear the end of it from the media. Have we heard about the letter to Russia:? Fortunately, we were in the car, when the press conference with George Brown was given and the press questioned the president on the letter, and we heard a comment about it.
Today's speech talked about supporting small businesses, and checking over-spending in government contracts. This is a good idea. So, is he wanting the people who are contracted by government to cut their pay, and yet, the earmarks, which he promised to resist, are being approved for "Congress" and other special interests groups? I have a sick feeling that "change is happening" to our country and her people will be the last to know what that change really means until it is too late.
Why are there conference calls every morning with the media? Why has the census "headquarters' moved into the White House? Is the government to be run from the top down? Is this what Big Government means, that top down governing will distribute to community "improvements"?
The budget is "last year's business", we are told, but it still affects the American people, in the long run. And it affects them not when they are 'on top" but on the bottom". Perhaps this is to be a "lesson" of "compassion" for those less fortunate. But, lessons are hard to learn when the anger hinders the hearing. We are not used to being "told what to do", but "nanny state" will do so and gladly.
Maybe Obama doesn't think that these "new friends" pose a threat to our security, but how can there not be a conflict of interest, when it comes to "connections" ? Will Muslims who defend their own with their very lives, at the costs of the "infidel's life" to be trusted with our intelligence? Maybe this is the point, we should be making friends with those who have connections to our political "enemies". Then, our "new friends" can have the conflict, in choosing to support us, and not, them. And, perhaps, the hope is that these "new friends" can vouch for us, defend our reputation to the "enemy", so that we can live in peace and security and not fear the amassing of WMD. But, can we trust those whose vision, and purpose is political control of the whole earth, under Shairia law? I am glad that Gert Wilders was allowed to come to show his film about Islam to Congress just recently.
I am, of course, speculating, but when one looks at the Obama cabinet, it looks like a re-creation of the Clintion cabinet, minus Janet Reno. Remember Reno? What about Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill? I remember what was talked about in the Washington Times, when the Bush cabinet moved into the White House. The place was a disaster. There seemed to be little respect toward our government and its property.
Remember the Lincolm bedroom? And the pictures taken of Clinton with drug lords, criminals other questionables? What about the illegal immigrants that were hoarded into immigration offices to be "nationalized" before the election? Many were criminals.
It is so ironic that Obama can write a letter to Russia requesting their help with Iran, if we take out the missile defense in Poland and yet, Rush Limbaugh can make a statement about his disagreement with the philosophy of this adminstration and not hear the end of it from the media. Have we heard about the letter to Russia:? Fortunately, we were in the car, when the press conference with George Brown was given and the press questioned the president on the letter, and we heard a comment about it.
Today's speech talked about supporting small businesses, and checking over-spending in government contracts. This is a good idea. So, is he wanting the people who are contracted by government to cut their pay, and yet, the earmarks, which he promised to resist, are being approved for "Congress" and other special interests groups? I have a sick feeling that "change is happening" to our country and her people will be the last to know what that change really means until it is too late.
Why are there conference calls every morning with the media? Why has the census "headquarters' moved into the White House? Is the government to be run from the top down? Is this what Big Government means, that top down governing will distribute to community "improvements"?
The budget is "last year's business", we are told, but it still affects the American people, in the long run. And it affects them not when they are 'on top" but on the bottom". Perhaps this is to be a "lesson" of "compassion" for those less fortunate. But, lessons are hard to learn when the anger hinders the hearing. We are not used to being "told what to do", but "nanny state" will do so and gladly.
Rights, the Press, and Reform or Revolution?
Government, whether national, parochial, or familial is instituted as a means of protection. Government is an ordering and structuring of society for the "common good'. Good government does not oppress, but gives a frame to live a "peaceful" life. Scriptures commend us to pray for government, so that our lives may be peaceful. But, what of reform or revolution, then?
Traditional "biblical" Christians are taught to submit, as 'this is the will of God in Christ Jesus, concerning you". This scripture is written with the assumption that "god controls" the events of life. This view is not affriming of what science knows to be true about time, the cosmos, and systems. Therefore, "biblical Christianity" does not exist, except in one's head. Personally, I find telling someone a "myth" to soothe their suffering, or soothe their conscience, is being dishonest.
But, theology has sought to bring about "hope" to give a reason in difficult situations or times. These theological "musings" are offensive, and can be horrendously oppressive.
The political realm is where "life happens". Politics drives policy, but ideas are what drive politics. The philosophical arguments about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is really where the battle should be waged.
Every human has life, but all do not have quality or liberty of life, much less the political freedom to pursue happiness. These are the practical issues that policy seeks to address on a global scale, but how? Liberty is not won except by exposing the costs of tyranny.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a political dissident for the U.S.S.R., in the March 15, 1976 article in U.S. News and World Report, said:
"Tyrants, bandits, puppets have come to power and pragmatice philosophy says: That
doesn't matter, we have to recognize them. And what is more, one should not consider
that the great principles of freedom finish at your own frontiers, that as long as you
have freedom, let the rest have pragmatism. No. Freedom is indivisible, and one has to
take a moral attitude toward it" (pg. 23).
The human heart is meant for freedom, and good government should allow freedom to the individual to pursue his own ends. Tyrannical governments have used many means to oppress; bad laws, no law, and God.
"All men are created equal with certain inalienable rights", "with liberty and justice for all", these are quotes that any American knows, and I hope, values. The principle is the value of the individual and the freedom that justice provides. No one should suffer under the hands of bad government, but most in this world, do. Americans do not live with fear of government interference in their private lives nor do we fear government paranoia, where government intrusively invades our physical space to demand an accounting.
Americans became a "people" because of the belief that none should be diminished or repressed. The cry of the Revolution was "no taxation without Representation". A Representative Republic "ideally" holds the leaders accountable to the people, not the people to the government. And the accountbility of the leader to the people they represent is the "vote".
In our free society, we are to give feedback to our representatives, as our voice is to be valued. If leaders are blind to the needs, values, suggestions of their people, then they have ceased to represent, and have become figure-heads or bandits of our treasury.
Free societies are only as free as the press. The press has great power in giving information to the people in our free society, but if the information is skewed, or suppressed, then the press is undermining our freedom, not just of the pertinent information, but our society as a whole. Again, let me quote Solzhenitsyn:
"The most important aspect of detente today is that there is not ideological detente. You
Western people simply can't grasp the power of Soviet propaganda."
Without free information, people are at the mercy of their rulers. I heard on a radio program yesterday, that some in our press are informed from the White House about news coverage. How one writes about the news can impact and influence public opinion. This adminstration obviously knows that without the press as a powerful weapon of reforming and revolutionizing our nation's values, "change" will not occur. Our society is to be an open and free one, but secret letters written by the President about national affairs, without accountability to Congress or the people, is acting without representing. The same independence of attitude was "applied" at Guantanamo Bay.
Government is a gift, but must be valued by responsible behavior. Leaders should be accountable, and the people fully informed. Otherwise, we are headed for the tyranny that Solzhenitsyn warned about. Americans must not allow that.
Traditional "biblical" Christians are taught to submit, as 'this is the will of God in Christ Jesus, concerning you". This scripture is written with the assumption that "god controls" the events of life. This view is not affriming of what science knows to be true about time, the cosmos, and systems. Therefore, "biblical Christianity" does not exist, except in one's head. Personally, I find telling someone a "myth" to soothe their suffering, or soothe their conscience, is being dishonest.
But, theology has sought to bring about "hope" to give a reason in difficult situations or times. These theological "musings" are offensive, and can be horrendously oppressive.
The political realm is where "life happens". Politics drives policy, but ideas are what drive politics. The philosophical arguments about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is really where the battle should be waged.
Every human has life, but all do not have quality or liberty of life, much less the political freedom to pursue happiness. These are the practical issues that policy seeks to address on a global scale, but how? Liberty is not won except by exposing the costs of tyranny.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a political dissident for the U.S.S.R., in the March 15, 1976 article in U.S. News and World Report, said:
"Tyrants, bandits, puppets have come to power and pragmatice philosophy says: That
doesn't matter, we have to recognize them. And what is more, one should not consider
that the great principles of freedom finish at your own frontiers, that as long as you
have freedom, let the rest have pragmatism. No. Freedom is indivisible, and one has to
take a moral attitude toward it" (pg. 23).
The human heart is meant for freedom, and good government should allow freedom to the individual to pursue his own ends. Tyrannical governments have used many means to oppress; bad laws, no law, and God.
"All men are created equal with certain inalienable rights", "with liberty and justice for all", these are quotes that any American knows, and I hope, values. The principle is the value of the individual and the freedom that justice provides. No one should suffer under the hands of bad government, but most in this world, do. Americans do not live with fear of government interference in their private lives nor do we fear government paranoia, where government intrusively invades our physical space to demand an accounting.
Americans became a "people" because of the belief that none should be diminished or repressed. The cry of the Revolution was "no taxation without Representation". A Representative Republic "ideally" holds the leaders accountable to the people, not the people to the government. And the accountbility of the leader to the people they represent is the "vote".
In our free society, we are to give feedback to our representatives, as our voice is to be valued. If leaders are blind to the needs, values, suggestions of their people, then they have ceased to represent, and have become figure-heads or bandits of our treasury.
Free societies are only as free as the press. The press has great power in giving information to the people in our free society, but if the information is skewed, or suppressed, then the press is undermining our freedom, not just of the pertinent information, but our society as a whole. Again, let me quote Solzhenitsyn:
"The most important aspect of detente today is that there is not ideological detente. You
Western people simply can't grasp the power of Soviet propaganda."
Without free information, people are at the mercy of their rulers. I heard on a radio program yesterday, that some in our press are informed from the White House about news coverage. How one writes about the news can impact and influence public opinion. This adminstration obviously knows that without the press as a powerful weapon of reforming and revolutionizing our nation's values, "change" will not occur. Our society is to be an open and free one, but secret letters written by the President about national affairs, without accountability to Congress or the people, is acting without representing. The same independence of attitude was "applied" at Guantanamo Bay.
Government is a gift, but must be valued by responsible behavior. Leaders should be accountable, and the people fully informed. Otherwise, we are headed for the tyranny that Solzhenitsyn warned about. Americans must not allow that.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Fabian Socialism and the Fight for American Ideals
I was just looking up Fabian Socialism tonight. You should look it up, it is alarming! Fabian socialists believe in a "soft" revolution of our economic and political systems, which is happening right before our eyes. The FS mantra is "selflessness", in the name of social justice and for the 'common good". I agree that most of us in the West need to learn to defer, at times, but not lay over and die! Individuality, choice, freedom and justice are not just terms that have no meaning for the "common", but was used to protect the "common". That is the basis of our democracy. That concept of protection of the common is changing. Paternalism is alive and well. Welcome to the world of the Fabian socialist!
There was one commentary, when I googled, on Obama that was insightful and informative, of his tactics. This person was brought up by a grandfather who was a Fabian socialist. He will and is playing on propagandizing the "public good" . He inherited $700 billion in assests in our banks. And he wants to herald in health care, which he will not do outright, as that would be too blatant of the ultimate goal, complete and total take-over of the health care industry. It will be done by starving the private sector. No business can survive without incentives, which are benefits for staying in business. If government makes so many demands upon business, then motivation, morale, and money all suffer.
Healthcare is only one area of government control. We already have partial nationalization of our banking industry. They want to enlarge big government and make people dependent on government and not take self-responsibility.
I am gravely concerned, as many are not even aware of what is happening, but when they become aware, I am afraid it will be too late. Fabian Socialism is an elitist way of breeding co-operation of the peasant class.
Human rights will no longer be forefront and center, as it will be deemed special priviledge for those who are educated beyond the "common". And the dangerous aspect about all of it is that elitism was the rationale for Hitler to do "away" with the "inferior person". Inferior persons cease to have rights, because they don't measure up to the standard of elitism.
Fabian Socialist are the "Third Way" to attain approval from those whose lives will ultimately depend upon them. Fabian socialist are deemed to be the social engineers, the revolutionaries in reformer's clothing. Fabian Socialist will breed unity around our "common crisis", defend the need to do "major surgury" on our economy, then call for sacrifice for the "common good", while wielding the power of the media to control and educate the public "for their own sake" and for the interests of the nation. We see all of this happening before our eyes.
This is nothing other than public economic scourging. And the demise of our great nation will be the result.
There was one commentary, when I googled, on Obama that was insightful and informative, of his tactics. This person was brought up by a grandfather who was a Fabian socialist. He will and is playing on propagandizing the "public good" . He inherited $700 billion in assests in our banks. And he wants to herald in health care, which he will not do outright, as that would be too blatant of the ultimate goal, complete and total take-over of the health care industry. It will be done by starving the private sector. No business can survive without incentives, which are benefits for staying in business. If government makes so many demands upon business, then motivation, morale, and money all suffer.
Healthcare is only one area of government control. We already have partial nationalization of our banking industry. They want to enlarge big government and make people dependent on government and not take self-responsibility.
I am gravely concerned, as many are not even aware of what is happening, but when they become aware, I am afraid it will be too late. Fabian Socialism is an elitist way of breeding co-operation of the peasant class.
Human rights will no longer be forefront and center, as it will be deemed special priviledge for those who are educated beyond the "common". And the dangerous aspect about all of it is that elitism was the rationale for Hitler to do "away" with the "inferior person". Inferior persons cease to have rights, because they don't measure up to the standard of elitism.
Fabian Socialist are the "Third Way" to attain approval from those whose lives will ultimately depend upon them. Fabian socialist are deemed to be the social engineers, the revolutionaries in reformer's clothing. Fabian Socialist will breed unity around our "common crisis", defend the need to do "major surgury" on our economy, then call for sacrifice for the "common good", while wielding the power of the media to control and educate the public "for their own sake" and for the interests of the nation. We see all of this happening before our eyes.
This is nothing other than public economic scourging. And the demise of our great nation will be the result.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Last Night's Movie
Last night due to our son's recommendation, we watched 'The Changling'. It was about a single depression-era Mom loosing her son, and her attempt to recover him.
The experiences that she had with law enforcement officers reminds one of corruption "methods" wherever they are found in the world. The innocent suffer because others seek to protect thier reputations, "pad their pockets", or circumvent their "mistakes". In this case, it was the LAPD (Los Angeles Police Department).
One begins to understand what some suffer due to those in power whose characters leave something to be desired. In fact, this movie shows to what extinct those in power will seek to protect themselves, while condemning others. A mother and son's relationship is one that most can identify with and Angelina Jolie and the rest of the "stars" did a fantastic job performing their parts.
The scary thing is, that this was a true story. The corruption of those who were meant to protect is not experienced by most Americans. And I will not spoil the movie for those who might want to see it, in describing how justice was served. But, it was something that makes the heart soar to see "right" win.
The experiences that she had with law enforcement officers reminds one of corruption "methods" wherever they are found in the world. The innocent suffer because others seek to protect thier reputations, "pad their pockets", or circumvent their "mistakes". In this case, it was the LAPD (Los Angeles Police Department).
One begins to understand what some suffer due to those in power whose characters leave something to be desired. In fact, this movie shows to what extinct those in power will seek to protect themselves, while condemning others. A mother and son's relationship is one that most can identify with and Angelina Jolie and the rest of the "stars" did a fantastic job performing their parts.
The scary thing is, that this was a true story. The corruption of those who were meant to protect is not experienced by most Americans. And I will not spoil the movie for those who might want to see it, in describing how justice was served. But, it was something that makes the heart soar to see "right" win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
