Justice, Moral Values, and Universals in Public Policy

Justice is maintaining equality under law. It is balanced and informed governing and government. Everyone is enriched, and blessed when government runs as it should, which is inclusive of the purpose of government.

Government is comprised of leaders who rule, make the rules, and determine direction. While our government is run by policy that is made by leaders, policy itself is fully informed (or should be) before determining which and what policy should be legislated. Legislation makes demands upon all of us, as policy is to better society. And better societies are for human flourishing.

Today, during an honor's college luncheon, a scholar whose discipline was political science gave a talk about the interface of Christian faith with the university, society, and public policy. The Christian traditionally had understood all of truth to be informative of "God's world". Thus, the disciplines were studied to further and undergird faith, not the other way around. But, what happens when science undermines a particular understanding of faith? This is where the Christian world is today, as each discipline has its own "story" or understanding of the "facts". What is the universalizing or whole understanding of truth? Postmodernity calls for there to be interdependence of the disciplines, which is responsibility and accountability of knowledge.

This scholar argued that the secularization of the university was the result of separating faith from "fact" (this was not her term, but mine). I also believe that all Truth is God's Truth. This means that there is no special revelation, but that all is revelation, as we learn and grow. But, I also believe that what we know is but "in part" therefore, there should be a real and honest humility in our policy making and listening to the various "experts".

One legal case study of a particular situation is not a valid argument to make for universiality, when it comes to moral universals, unless the Supreme Court so rules. But, it may influence courts in sucessive cases. So, it is important that the facts are all known. So I do not believe that a relgious authority, whether in Church or text, should be the universal determinant of the value of life. Science should be consulted in such cases, and not the Church alone. The Church should not be an oppressive ruling party, such as the Taliban, but a "voice" in our public square. And that voice should not be a shrill, unreasoned, irrational voice of fear and intimidation, but one of reasoned hope. A voice that appeals to reason and not filled with emotion. Reason is what postmodernity needs most.

"Universal" morality is defined in many ways. The arguments are always based on authorial sources, outside the "self". These sources in the Quadralateral are reason, scripture, tradition, and experience. Since postmodernity has undermined absolute reason, contextual texts, specific traditions, then the experience of the individual is all that is left, as a universal. Experience is only of value when one is appealing to a more unified way of arguing for moral value, which is "human experience". Human experience is based on a hierarchal "need" base, such as Maslow argued. But, even in arguing and agreeing on the universal of human experience and universal human needs, one does not validate a specific universal moral value. (Is poverty more important than education? It depends on the context. Is pastoring a Church more important than encouraging a young adult to pursue their dreams?)

Our country's values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are of greatest moral value to our people. Without liberty, one does not have life, as life must be free to choose what is of ultimate value. Liberty is not freedom to do anything one wants, such as cheating, lying, or stealing, but it is for seeking what one desires to be of value in one's life to bring happiness, and benefit society at large.

Life is of universal value as all people have it, but not everyone has liberty. We must fight for freedom above all because dominating traditions, or different voices that want to universalize the insignificant are undermining to the individual in their pursuit of happiness and their value of life.

Worldviews, Culture, and Questions

Man is a questioning animal. We seek to understand. And in thinking about how to organize my thoughts about questions concerning the "Ultimate", I started to understand why it is important to allow for diversity.

Our globalized and technologically connected "world" has exposed us like not other time in history, where we can know about differences in culture. But, while we are exposed to these differences, we are also challenged to bring about "unity" of some kind in our understanding of the economic realm, as this realm determines how our interconnectivity is to be managed for everyone's good.

We cannot live isolated, if our country wants to engage a larger world, which we must. But, my question is where do we draw or make distinctions about "the good"? We are a country that allows for diversity, but how is diversity allowed in a larger world, where diversity is not embraced, for fear of dissolving "culture"?

Culture is a defining characteristic of an environment. It maintains a sense of "solidarity". Our country's defining or solidifying "culture" is "individuality". The individual has grown and flourished in some respects in this free and open culture. But, freedom without responsibility has disadvantaged our culture from its moral "sense". We are committed to individuality at the expense of "solidarity".

So, in asking myself questions this morning, I found that while "we, the people" are the definition of the United States of America, "we, the people" lacks a solidifying "culture" to maintain a cultural identity. And this is where our politicians, as well as the individual citizen is indebted to our nation's past value of "liberty and justice for all", which is a universal value and should underline our nation's commitment to further human rights abroad.

Thomas Jefferson on the Economy and Good Government

I hope for any who might read this....Enjoy it as much as I did....

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. Thomas Jefferson

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world. Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. Thomas Jefferson
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. Thomas Jefferson

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Thomas Jefferson
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. Thomas Jefferson


Very Interesting Quote In light of the present financial crisis, it's interesting to read what Thomas Jefferson said in 1802: '

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'

Amen!

I Will Be A Biblical Christian "Till My Cows Come Home"!

I am to learn in quiet submission. Anyone that knows me, knows that I can't learn in quiet submission. I must ask questions, extrapolate, investigate, and verbalize.

I feel sorry for those who have had classes with me. I really try to hold my hand in my lap, but find it rising without my notice, as I'm too busy looking, listening and thinking, trying to put things together. I can't stand to have things in my mind not connected. I wish it were more desirous to be "ordered" in my own home! Oh, now I think I remember that that was another gauge as to a "biblical woman".

I am thankful for a patient husband and wonder if he would talk more, if I didn't. Sometimes, when I've tried not to talk to see if he'd talk more, he just enjoys the peace and quiet.

I know, I know that the Bible says that women should be quiet in church and have a meek and quiet spirit. This is something I'm working on, but haven't made much progress. I guess some of us are just born more spiritually blessed, than others! (Oops, there goes my envy gauge! What's a girl to do?)

Once when I first started this blog, I'd set up a questionaire that asked if I should stop writing and low, and behold, someone, the only one that responded checked that box! But, I didn't let that deter me, as I knew that I had to write. It is therapy for me. And besides, they didn't have to read my blog anyway. I believe in "freedom of speech"! So I have continued to write and it gives me pleasure. Is that sin?

Just today, I led a discussion in a class on our sources of authority. And I found the class talking about politics. When I apologized, one of the students said that the class was supposed to be related to faith in society. That was a relief!

I had a professor one time that kept saying "biblical Christian" and calling me one. I told my husband I didn't know what he meant, as weren't all Christians biblical. I didn't know that there are many kinds of Christians.

So, in conclusion, I have decided that I am not, nor will I ever be, nor do I want to be a "biblical Christian" whatever that means.

P.S. I don't have any cows....

In Answer to My Question....

This morning's entry was entitled "Is There Historical Christianity". In postmodernity, there has been an attempt to "actualize" Jesus' life, as radicalism of the text does. This is called "incarnation" in theological terms. It is bringing faith into action. This concern in scholarly and piestic circles has been the "disconnect" between faith and "works". As traditional Reformed formulas of understanding are based on faith "alone", disconnecting faith from 'real life", as piestic faith likes to "see" faith in action. Other believers have bought the "social gospel" as there is not holiness without social holiness in John Wesley's understanding. And still others think that the public and private domains need to connect because of the 'moral degeneracy that has affected Western culture.

The problem with historicizing the text into another's life, or legislating a narrow viewpoint is that it over-rides the value of that specific life for a 'worldview" or a specific moral example, which entails specific convictions and values. These cannot be universalized without doing injustice to another human life. So, where is faith and historicity in post-modernity?

Wherever faith resides it will be known by the life that is led. The problem is' another's life may differ from yours, because they are different people, with a different perspective, and different values. Such is cultural diversity. And faith is not about cultural distinctives, as faith accomodates to the culture itself. But, some suggest that faith should transform culture, as this is what faith is called to do and is what the "social gospel" is about.

That being said, Americans most of all need to lighten up on issues that drive some to ideological extremes. Moderation is a virtue. But, some think moderation is compromise, luke-warmness, and half-heartedness. But, I think that moderation shows respect and humility to reason, faith and others, as it values first and foremost freedom of the individual to have difference, and freedom of the individual before God.

Is There Such a Thing as Historical Christianity?

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

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

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

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

Balance of Power in American Government

I was thinking the other morning about the recent abuses of power in our government.

Bush used the executive branch to subvert the judicial branch in carrying out or not carrying out the law (depending on how one interprets the law).The judicial branch is to interpret law and render it justness in specific cases.

At Guatanomo Bay, it was unclear what the law required as to "international law" and human rights issues versus our national security and our own laws concerning jurisprudence. And it seemd as if Bush didn't care what the courts would say about it. All being said, most think that irregardless of "standing", these prisoners deserved humane treatment. But, in more discussion of this issue, more became concerned about humane treatment when it came to other issues of "investigation" and national security. These are not easily decided, as they cross the divide over humanity's "right", irregardless of citizenship, or whether one's own right as a nation deserves protection and the "criminal" has given up his "right" of protection under the law. Even in our everyday world, our country demands at arrest the criminal to be "read his rights" to defense, etc. But, is this only a "citizen's right"? Immigration policy has been discussed in this domain. Where do the requirements of justice over-ride one's duty to country? And where does duty to country actualize justice?

We cannot apply justice where we do not live. We can theorize about how justice would behave, but we cannot be just in such situations unless we are the lawyers in international courts. But, justice does demand a underlying frame, which is in our Constitution.

On the other hand, the recent "bail out money" has implications also about our government's balance of power to the executive branch in this adminstration. Congress represents the legislative branch where laws are made or determined in application. Congress must understand their responsibility to the public in the way they handle the public's monies. Certian ideologies do not distinguish very largely between the public and private domains in this area. These think of public monies as "one big pot" where we all can vie for public monies. These are the ones who sometimes mis-use the system in their greedy desire for "hand-outs".

Public monies come from private hands that have worked hard and long hours to give back to their government for its protection. Those who do not look on these hard-working people as anything but pinions to be a useful means of enslavement to the government's outrageous appetite have no regard for the individual worker, whether professional or blue collar.

It is too easy for government to be looked upon as a "nanny state' where it soon becomes a "co-depedent"state, where the State becomes the "Hero" and those in government use their positions to enlarge their own lives.

Abuse of power is only the result of unaccountability to the public or those that are "paying the bills". Congress should remain balance between our two party system and allow both voices a hearing in Congressional chambers. Otherwise, we are doomed to be a One Party State, under a One Party Dictator.