WAR Between the Classes Is More Than Economic

In Novemeber, there was an article in Time that intrigued me. The article suggested that there had been and now is a wide gap between what Time called "the military class" and "the Political Elite". And this is what got me thinking today, as I was thinking about class warfare and its usefulness for political manipulation.

The Times article suggested that the military class was becoming ingrown, as more and more children of military families volunteer for military service. These understand military culture, which values duty, honor and country. And such an ingrown culture is not unlike that of elite academia, which until recently didn't allow ROTC into their university environments. Such a condition can't help but alienate "the Academy" from "the military class" and it widens the gap of understanding between the military and those that work in other areas of government. When such alienation happens, it is no wonder that each talks "past each other", because they have different goals and foci.

While the military has been gathering a more ingrown culture, the political class has forgotten the military's major reason for existing and their duty to protect the citizenry against foreign powers under the protections of a Constitutional government. The "academic elite" are those that usually get into political office these days. Those that serve as "Commander in Chief" aren't required to serve in the military, and as a result, humanitarian emphasis has become as important as our nation's political interests. Humanitarian interests sometimes conflicts with the public interests and the public trust of the elected official and national security issues. Should the elected official do his duty of serving his country as elected or seek to implement a change that is not limited or accountable to the people or other branches of government?

Yesterday the Washington Post had an article about the rising costs of campaigning and how limited the average person is in running for office and having an ability to win. Today, the wealth accumulated by our elected officials has furthered the gap between the citizen and the political class.

Such gaps of wealth accumulation further propitiate a "ruling class" where their personal business interests become a consideration when overseeing public affairs/policy deicisions. Where is the ethics of a Congress that can grant exceptions and exemptions to their political allies? Croynism becomes the culture of corruption and leaves the little guy wondering what is happening to his own material security.

Our society if fraught today with many Wars. The culture war between faith and the political; the class warfare between the rich and the poor; the political class and the military; and the ruling class and the peasant. Is it any wonder why the French revolted when their country used public trust and public funds to help other countries, while their own society disintergrated into desolation? Is it any wonder that those that play on political chaos for ther own political gain have the makings of dictators that have no sense of boundary regarding their office? Is it any wonder that the Tea Party and the Occupiers have expressed various concerns, and why the political class isn't interested because they don't really have to be? They are unaccountable and well equipped to take care of themselves without considering what their own self interest costs the nation. Whenever government and its officials become a "law unto themselves", then the rest of us had better be prepared for some rough waters ahead.

A Grandmother's Shopping Liberty and the Government

This morning a friend posted this statement on FB, "Today, some folks have to worry about running a country or keeping a multi-billion dollar business afloat. I just have to find a pink cowgirl hat." I have another post about this same comment, but, I must share the other implications about this comment.

The implications of being able to enjoy the peace of good government and how business, as well as personal values are dependent on it. The "rule of law" was to guard each one against each one, as this was equal justice, not preferrential treatment. Such a statement as; "Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy." ~Louis Brandeis, is very true, because our country was founded on the right to resist. We were a people BY CONSENT, but politicians like to make use of "tactile consent" meaning that leaders are "FREE" to do as they please, since they are elected officials.

While I do not disagree in the least that those elected to public office MUST use tactile consent to make policy decisions, as without it, politicians would be encumbered by many constraints, that would limit their ability to govern. But, when politicians use this right to their advantage, or in spite of "the people's consent", then haven't they become contemptuous of those they are to govern? When does such an action become a violation of trust in our elected officials, and thus a loss of confidence in our government? And when does this loss of confidence become demoralizing or angering to those that thought their voice was important, valued or heard?

Americans do take their government for granted. We believe that we can go when we please and find the Pink cowgirl hat for our grand-daughter, apart from the responsibilities of elected officials. And this is how it should be, because our elected officials should be trustworthy with the people's trust and the people's monies.

Colors Through Life Experiences....and Their Personal Meaning

This morning a friend posted this statement on FB, "Today, some folks have to worry about running a country or keeping a multi-billion dollar business afloat. I just have to find a pink cowgirl hat."

My mind immediately tried to connect the three aspects together, which is a usual for me, as all of us try to understand what another person means by what they say or write. As the statement was meant not to CONNECT these three, but distinguish these three, I had made a categorical error in my evaluation about the meaning of the statement! She was making a comment about her grand-daughter's preferences and how she would meet those desires and how she didn't have the responsibility to oversee a government or business. And this was her emphasis about finding a Pink cowgirl hat!

When I came around to correcting myself, by reading the other comments, we "talked" about our color preferences as children, as not all girls like Pink as little girls. I preferred Red, while my friend emphasized her like for shiny things, not the usual doll. She focused on the tangible toy, while I focused on the abstract color preference.

Some people continue to love the color they loved as children, and the color defines them, while others change their preferences. I think I have come to love all colors, and the colors I've particularly been drawn to at a point in time have represented aspects of my emotional values.

Red was the color of choice as a little girl. It stood for vibrancy and life. But, when I grew toward puberty, I preferred orange. Orange is red with yellow added. Yellow produces anxiety and energy. Both expressed my entrance into puberty. When I got into the real world of dating, I preferred Green, which is yellow plus blue. Blue was the cool and calm comfort with the contrasting mix of anxiety and energy. I was attempting to find love through my college years and it represented what I sought and the effect it had on me.

When asked what my favorite color is today, I find it really hard to decide! I think it is because life has so many expressions and experiences that can't be contained in one color! That is how I "see" and understand things in my life! I just know that in decorating I love contrast! I love to see the differences and distinctions of color! And I prefer for those distinctions to play off of each other! That makes life exciting and diverse and not the drab, colorless world of beiges.

Greys are different from beiges as they combine a negative and postive, but beiges combine black with yellow and dilute it with white. Blah. Therefore, grey has become a color I enjoy.

What do colors mean and how have you come to understand them in your life, whether their emotional impact, and meaning or your decorative choice and value?

One Cannot Universalize the Personal Within the Political Realm!

Humans have basic needs, which cannot be prioritized universally, but must remain the realm of the personal, as we are individuals that "make our way" within our various contexts.

The liberal wants to universalize what has to remain personal (a choice of value in the political world). And the conservative wants to universalize meaning, which has to also remain personal. Both the political life of a person and the "meaning" of life for the person must be made within a liberal form of government that does not oversee or overintend "the personal"!!! That is if the person of to remain "free" not just in a "Transcendent" sense, but a real and political sense!!!!!

What We Believe In, We Promote

What we believe in we promote; the Church believes in its mission for its own survival, as any entity seeks to survive. Survival is basic to humans physically, socially and psychologically, as well as businesses, States and communities. Survival is the most basic of needs.

Today's sermon was on one of the most primary needs and emphasis of evangelicalism, which is "Evangelism" (but converts are needed in all religions, if they continue to thrive and grow, unless that particular religious tradition builds itself through populating the earth and enculturating the earth in this way.) Though evangelicals don't like to think of themselves as fundamentalists, they really are, because they accept "special revelation" or a 'higher or transcendent truth". Such "truth" was what our pastor talked about today, as it is a means of "transformation".The message took a passage from Acts to suggest that Phillip was to help interpret the eunach's questions about a passage he was reading from Isaiah. This is the "mission of the church' to help others understand their lives within the context of "God's Plan" "Purpose or Vision", which is identified within "the Bible". Such a vision is about about spiritualizing one's understanding, or seeing things through "God's perspective", and surrendering one's understanding to the Magisterium, The Church's "teaching minsters". The Magisterium were the appointed leaders to "conform" converts to "correct doctrine", so that "perfection" might be attained.

The Magesterium talk about transcendent realities, that are not practical realities, except to further the Church's mission. 'Missions" are really about political realities and goals.I must give credit to our pastor, though, as he did affirm the need of "the human". He talked of the evangelical church's "sin" of not listening, or attempting to convert before building relationship, etc. But, the end goal of such relationship is still to convert and conform. "God' is still the priority of such agendas, not the person themself. (But, perhaps, I judge the pastor too harshly, as he truly believes what he preaches, I believe. And we all tend to promote what we believe in, don't we?). The person themself is the end, not "God", in my opinion. And the person, themself, is the answer to many difficulties we face in our nation presently.

The issues of peace, and virtue are Roman values that have come to impact the Church's "mission" as the Church was intially accused of creating a disturbance to peace, and were blamed for the downfall of Rome. But, today, peace and virtue are the "transforming work" of the Church. According to the "first modern historian of the Roman Empire", Edward Gibbon, Christians had lost their "civic virtue", because they were waiting to "be saved" in the next "life". And many in the Roman Empire had handed over its protection to the Praetorian Guard. A recent Time's article suggests that this is what has happened in America today. The "military class" is becoming isolated and insulated from the "power elite" and the average American citizen! Such a gap does not encourage citizenship and the larger issues of character. The Military Academy at Westpoint has as its motto; "We don't lie, cheat, or steal and we don't tolerate those who do". This is a high standard for most of the "power elite". The military is "taken for granted" but not applauded by many. In fact, many liberals think that Utopian ideals are attainable apart from realistic goals and grounded historical realities.

Our pastor's message was a message that the evangelical church wants to promote. And fortunately, in America, one can give their life to what they believe in, not what they are forced to believe!

Religious Conscience and Lifestyle

I recently commented on a friend's post about research on "gay lifestyles". The post was referenced back to "Renew America", which is a Christian grassroots political organization. Such organizations have a particular agenda that they deem significant because of their belief that "God" has ordained Scripture to be the "tried and true" (and right) way to promote human flourishing. I have questions.

First of all, I do not accept that the text as "inspired by God", other than it was written by men in certain situations that granted wisdom of and for that day. Today's wisdom is a scientifically oriented one, not a religiously biased one.

Secondly, I do not believe that anyone should be promoting a re-orientation to another's identity, unless it is damaging to society. This research was promoting a "repentance" from a lifestyle that was considered forbidden by "God", as they take the text at "face value". Such "re-framing" of identity is "in Christ". It is a movement of social organizing for a specific purpose, which is "God's Kingdom", as they interpret Scripture.

Such people believe that "God" exists and oversees all things and "God" has revealed His will in the confines of The Book. This is the traditonal view of evangelical Protestant Christianity, but it does not recognize the broader questions other than take at "face value" what is "to be believed". They seek to validate Scripture by a presuppositonal stance toward it! There is no way to disprove Scripture, because one's community is a self-perpituating entity. Truth is to be proven, and experienced, instead of sought out and discovered! And those that don't believe "lack faith" to believe and be "saved"!

This "tradition" does not take into consideration the history of the Church, or the roots of Judiasm, when they think of "faith". Theirs is an experiential and lived faith that they think is appropriate to promote for everyone. Theirs is an intense "mission focused' and oriented. All people are to be brought under their umbrella, as this is promoting "the Kingdom of God". While such a movement is not rooted in "deep history", it is rooted in American Revivalist tradition, and serves the purposes of furthering the political machine of "the social".

I know what it is like to suffer under another's religious conscience. Transitional and memorable life events were tainted or undermined by those that "thought better" than what I desired! The reason could be nothing other than the "conviction" that they were right and I was wrong, or that they were the "authority"! There was no "discussion" about differences of opinion, because their "conviction" was "not an opinion"!!! It was "God's fact"! If there was resistance, then I was rebellious, disobedient and would live under "God's judgment". The fear of God was to "keep people in line". Such attitudes did not "happen" until there was a conversion experience! Then, the experience somehow gave such as these "God's mind"!

"Self" is defined by such religious cultures and ceases to exist apart from another's sanctoning, sanctimonious and righteous attitude about life and all that is! Persecution will ensue if one does not acquiesce to such "convictions". A Bible beating is the end of such questioning, or differences of opinion. One wonders if these have any sense of "self" other than what they "feel" to be "God". The truth is that "God" is really THEIR conscience! And others are to be conformed to it!

I have come to the point where religion is not beneficial to me, and I do not want to promote it, other than allow those that want to affirm their faith in a way that is non-interfering to others.

When I think back about my journey, I used to also be persuaded that leaving churches that allowed divorcees to teach, or withdrawing approval of those that chose to see things differently was an appropriate way to handle "life's problems". And if everyone would concur with Scripture everyone would come to a unified understanding and life would be "perfect". In the meantime, I was comforted with the fact that life's tragedies were to teach me for "God's purposes"! It was all about me, because I needed it to be!

I still need it to be "about me", as everyone else does. Self interst is a "fact of life". Individuals are unique in their interests, but not in their desires. The desire to be loved, accepted and understood is a human trait, but all individuals will differ in interests, values and commitments. I don't believe that to be "human" means that one has to be a clone in one's interests, values and commitments. This seems to be the case for many in the evangelical camp. They think that if one has a difference of opinion concerning such social issues as abortion, gay marriage, etc. then, you are undermining "God's order" of the universe!

Gay marriage should be legalized in our society because it is just. Society can stll affirm monogomy which affirms the value of the two individuals involved, as well as protect society from STDs. Gays have desires, as all humans do for sexual expression and commitment to the person that means the most to them. That expression should be allowed within the confines of a marital relationship, where the partners can be respected as equal before the law and not marginalized by those that think they have "God's mind"!

A Note for Humanism and It's Ideals

I have been reading and reading and it seems to me that today's thrust for religion is humanistis, rather than Theistic. But, what are the problems of humanism, as an ideal? Humanism can't be held as individuals in their OWN right are the only end, not some cultural "ideal"! Otherwise, individuals are not values, only the "ideal", which is unattainable in this world.

All "solutions" are pragmatic ones, which mean that there is planning and "engineering" of sorts, which makes for success in a given strategy. But, goals of universalization or universals, themselves aren't pragmatic, because the world is much too large and diverse. Unless one wants to promote a uniformity upon the world. This solution politically and practically speaking is 'communism". Equality is regulated by some "power" which is unregulated itself. And this is the problem, isn't it?

Yesterday, when I heard that we would be sending special troops into Central Africa, I wondered why. Was it necessary to sacrifice our special forces to such an endeavor, when we are already stretched militarily and financially? Didn't our Constituton ask the President and other elected officials to protect our country and uphold our Constitution? Then, how come our Representatives are not protecting OUR interests? This is an underhanded way to promote humanistic values, isn't it? And is the intent to dissolve our nation of it power, to prevent "special priviledge'? Or is it our "moral duty" to protect the loss of life in ALL OTHER countries, at the same time reducing our military budgets and submitting to tyranncial governments? What is to be the outcome IF we do not RESIST such governments? And haven't our attempts to equip others to protect themselves ended up backfiring on us at a later date? There will not be Utopian ideals attained in this world and life. And yet, humanists want Utopian ideals and dreams.

The Jews have been the foundation to a Christian undestanding of "priviledge" and our humanitarian values have should restitution to the Holocost for them. What is to be our resitution to the world in giving this land to the Jews? Will the Jews continue to be ostericized by the world and hated by the Muslim? Do we think that when we try to rectify "injustice", as perceived by one that we un-do justice on the other hand? Will our attempts at pacifying Islam result in what has been a warning from those that should know; Islam's desire to hold global power and dominance?

It seems to me that there is a naive and idealistic hope that the "world will live in peace" and we will all live happily ever after! The problem is; if that can't be true for each and all individuals, then how in the Hell can it be true for the WORLD? Society is only made up of individuals, as society ONLY exists in the mind!!