I must admit that my heart has been heavy the last few days. I spent the two days before the House vote on the health care bill reading the reconcilliation and amendments package. I spent the two days after the vote continuing to read and gaining as much clarity as I could to what has now been voted into law. Yesterday and today I have been reading through my favorite blogs and listening to a variety of talk shows and reading the local paper for how people are reacting to the legislation and I find myself torn on how to respond. I see that both sides of the argument have some legitimate concerns (where the people expressing their views on the legislation are legitimate in their arguments).
On the one side, people are concerned about how difficult it is for individuals to purchase health insurance for themselves or their families; how it is difficult for small businesses to offer company-wide health plans for their employees because they cannot buy into the larger market plans; how pre-existing conditions and the current state of rising health care costs are a major area of concern for the general public.
On the other side, people are concerned about how liberty is being usurped by the legal requirement that individuals must purchase a product from a private entity; how small businesses are being required to provide company health plans under threat of fine or penalty; how the experience of history shows wide ranging social plans administered by the government have all ended up bankrupt and the economic factors suggest the plan is doomed to failure before it begins.
As one who has done his best to read and understand the bill as it currently stands, I believe in many areas there is not enough information to adequately argue one way or the other. A few examples:
1) The contention has been made that if individuals like their current coverage they can keep it. Opponents say the bill will make it impossible for individuals to afford to keep their current coverage whether they like it or not. In the text of the bill, all health care coverage carried by individuals and offered by employers must be Qualified Health Benefit Plans (QHBP)s. Specific coverage offered by a QHBP is to be stipulated by the Secretary who is appointed by the President upon passage. So, really at this moment no one knows what even constitutes a QHBP. Until that is determined, making any kind of determination about current plans must be held in abeyance.
2) The contention has been made that health care costs will decrease as a result of the enactment of the legislation, while opponents charge the bill will drive health care costs up and bankrupt the nation. In the text of the bill, the rates and methods of determining the rates for health care plans, like the make-up of a QHBP is to be determined by the Secretary upon passage of the legislation. So, again at this moment no one really knows whether nationwide health care costs will go up or down.
I realize that everyone can make an assumption as to what these unknowns might be and then project outcomes, but at this point it is simply unknown. More important to me is the emotion that is present on both sides and what the Christian response should be (where responses will be honoring and glorifying to God).
I'm going to throw out some questions that have crossed my mind in the last few days and maybe some of you others who have read the legislation or are also seeking to give some really good answers can help me out. I already know how i've answered these questions, but i'd like some additional input.
1) Is this whole health care and insurance topic a bi-product of the affluence of our society?
2) Is there a point at which a man can tell another man he must help his neighbor? Does loving one's neighbor as oneself apply just to the follower of Christ or to everyone? Does the United States' embrace of a secularized mindset have any bearing on this question, i.e. is the Church the only group who ought to love their neighbor as themselves?
3) Where do personal responsibility and accountability to God cross with the ideas of "general welfare"? What I mean by this, is the founders of the nation continually used the phrase "by the dictates of his own conscience" for the governance of an individual's behavior, does that concept still stand today?
4) When we speak of insurance, at what point are we beginning to point people to the government or an agent instead of to Almighty God? Put another way, when do we as a nation begin to see our days here on earth and those can provide temporally for our needs as those in whom we put our faith?
5) Is there a way for believers in Christ to be set apart as unique in this environment so that we will be seen as different and be curious as to how they can change to be more like us (which is to say more like Christ)? In other words, what opportunities for witness and evangelism are available in this tumultuous time?
I appreciate any thoughts as I believe the issues are deeper than just the 90 seconds they are typically given on news and talk shows. Thanks in advance for Godly wisdom and input.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Friday, March 12, 2010
Of Science and Religion
I just finished a book by John Polkinghorne called Belief in God in an Age of Science. I'm including some excerpts from the book here and some comments because of the rift between religion and science in contemporary culture. I hear so often these days comments like "just leave science to the scientists" or "you religious wackos need to stay out of science". We are tending today to become more and more specialized in particular areas of interest both academically and vocationally. Combine that with a secular conciousness where religious ideas, institutions and interpretations have lost their social significance and it's easy to see why people would tend to see a human being able to seperate out science, metaphysicis, philosophy, religion, sociology, etc. Each one compartmentalized and seperated so that one doesn't cross over and meddle into the affairs of the other. The reality is that the disciplines do overlap and that point, among others, is brought out very well in this book.
First a word about Dr. Polkinhorne, and to do that i'll just quote from the back book jacket:
"John Polkinghorne, K.B.E., F.R.S., is past President and now Fellow of Queens' College, Cambridge, and Canon Theologian of Liverpool, England. He is the winner of the 2002 Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities."
Dr. Polkinghorne is a theorhetical physicist, specializing in the area of quantum physics, and a comitted Christian. He is no slouch when it comes to scientific matters and so his thoughts are well worth thinking about and should be given credance. His position is summarized in the Preface to the book when he states: "This book presents a series of variations on a fundamental theme: if reality is generously and adequately construed, then knowledge will be seen to be one; if rationality is generously and adequately construed, then science and theology will be seen as partners in a common quest for understanding." Personally, i've never seen science and religion at war with one another, or the thought that one must exist in distinction from another. History has shown that scientific discovery has flourished in a general atmosphere of religion in general, and Christianity in particular, as those scientists set out to discover the wonders of God's creation. Following is just a smattering of quotations from the book and some thoughts.
"The world is not full of items stamped 'made by God' - the Creator is more subtle than that - but there are two locations where general hints of the divine presence might be expected to be seen most clearly. One is the vast cosmos itself, with its fifteen-billion-year-history of evolving development following the big bang. The other is the 'thinking reed' of humanity, so insignificant in physical scale but, as Pascal said, superior to all the stars because it alone knows them and itself. The universe and the means by which that universe has become marvellously self-aware - these are the centers of our enquiry.
Those who work in fundamental physics encounter a world whose large-scale structure (as described by cosmology) and small-scale processes (as described by quantum theory) are alike characterised by a wonderful order that is expressible in concise and elegant mathematical terms...Attempts have been made to explain away this fact. No one would deny, of course, that evolutionary necessity will have moulded our ability for thinking in ways that will ensure its adequacy for understanding the world around us, at least to the extent that is demanded for pressures for survival. Yet our surplus intellectual capacity, enabling us to comprehend the microworld of quarks and gluons and the macroworld of big bang cosmology, is on such a scale that it beggars belief that this is simply a fortunate by-product of the struggle for life."
It is interesting to note that it is easy enough to say that things came to be through a process of chance and time, but when we press the issue of why things are exactly what they are do we find problems with the chance and time explanation. Because of the multitude of things necessary to happen for things to be exactly what they are, the probabilites force an infinite number of universes and an infinite amount of time to come up with the chance happening of what we know to exist the way it does, and as Dr. Polkinghorne points out arranged such that it can be measured and expressed in understandable mathematical forms. We know there has not been infinite time, nor an infinite set of universes so there must be some other explanation.
"I have said that I do not expect top-down agency to be just a conglomerative effect of a lot of little bits of bottom-up interactions (in the way that the temperature of a gas is the average of the individual kinetic energies of its molecules). If holistic causality is present it must be there as a genuine novelty, and the structure of the relationships between the bits and pieces must be open enough to afford it room for manoeuvre. In some sense there must be gaps in the bottom-up account which this top-down action fills in, but those gaps must be intrinsic and ontological in character and not just contingent ignorances of the details of the bottom-up process. They must be 'really there' if they are to provide the causal joint for which we are looking.
A popular site for such explorations has been the uncertainties of quantum events...The continuing perplexities about the quantum measurement problem remind us that we do not fully understand how the levels of the microworld and the macroworld interlock with each other...The way a chaotic system traverses its strange attractor seems a more promising model fors such open developments, and this has been the basis for my own suggestions. We can consider the many different trajectories through the attractor's phase space (that is, the range of its future possible states) which all correspond to the total energy. Their different forms are understood as arising from the effects of vanishingly small disturbances that nudge the system along one path or another, the diverging characters of these different paths corresponding to the chaotic system's extreme sensitivity to perturbations.
It is this sensitivity that produces the intrinsic unpredictabilities. In a critical realist re-interpretation of what is going on, these epistemological uncertainties become an ontological openness, permitting us to suppose that a new causal principle may play a role in bringing about future developments...Thus a realist reinterpretation of the espistemological unpredictabilities of chaotic systems leads to the hypothesis of an ontological openness within which new causal principles may be held to be operating which determine the pattern of future behavior and which are of an holistic character. Here we see a glimmer of how it might be that we execute our willed intentions and how God exercises providential interaction with creation."
Fascinating stuff really. Behavior at the quantum level is chaotic is unmeasureable, except as a range of possibilities of behavior (called phase range). So there are many possible paths each with their own range of probability, this is the epistemological uncertainty. What Dr. Polkinghorne is saying is that while being epistemologically uncertain provides an ontological openness so that what actually occurs (or put another way, which path in the set of possibilites is actually chosen) can be acted upon by a causal agent outside the system, namely God providing information to direct the process.
These matters are interesting to think about, because we are hit more and more with the advances in science pushing God out and making religion obsolete. It seems the further down science is parsed, into the quantum realm, there is an uncertainty of what might happen coupled with an observation of what actually occurs. Something must move things from the chaotic (or uncertain) to the actual (or real). Because we are discussing acts at the quantum level the causal agent cannot be us, nor does it seem plausible to think it would be "Nature", as it were, as a non-thinking uncaring process for the simple fact that we are thinking moral beings.
I'll end this post with a final quotation from the book from some of the closing remarks:
"The arguments will continue, for deep metaphysical questions do not lend themselves to knock-down answering. There is a reminiscence here of the medievel debates between the realists and nominalists. Nevertheless, I believe there is a much more persuasive case for believing in the reality of the Mandelbrot set then in the reality of the Idea of a lion. There is a realm of physical experience containing sticks and stones. There is also a realm of mental experience containing the truths of mathematics. These are not disjoint realms but they are parts of an interlinked complementary created reality, as our 'amphibious' experience as embodied thinking reeds testifies, and as is also witnessed to by the 'unreasonable effectiveness' of mathematical pattern as the clue to the structure of physical law. I believe that mathematics provides a powerful - and for a scientist, readily accessible - encouragement to eschew physical reductionism and to embrace a generous view of the mental/material nature of reality."
First a word about Dr. Polkinhorne, and to do that i'll just quote from the back book jacket:
"John Polkinghorne, K.B.E., F.R.S., is past President and now Fellow of Queens' College, Cambridge, and Canon Theologian of Liverpool, England. He is the winner of the 2002 Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities."
Dr. Polkinghorne is a theorhetical physicist, specializing in the area of quantum physics, and a comitted Christian. He is no slouch when it comes to scientific matters and so his thoughts are well worth thinking about and should be given credance. His position is summarized in the Preface to the book when he states: "This book presents a series of variations on a fundamental theme: if reality is generously and adequately construed, then knowledge will be seen to be one; if rationality is generously and adequately construed, then science and theology will be seen as partners in a common quest for understanding." Personally, i've never seen science and religion at war with one another, or the thought that one must exist in distinction from another. History has shown that scientific discovery has flourished in a general atmosphere of religion in general, and Christianity in particular, as those scientists set out to discover the wonders of God's creation. Following is just a smattering of quotations from the book and some thoughts.
"The world is not full of items stamped 'made by God' - the Creator is more subtle than that - but there are two locations where general hints of the divine presence might be expected to be seen most clearly. One is the vast cosmos itself, with its fifteen-billion-year-history of evolving development following the big bang. The other is the 'thinking reed' of humanity, so insignificant in physical scale but, as Pascal said, superior to all the stars because it alone knows them and itself. The universe and the means by which that universe has become marvellously self-aware - these are the centers of our enquiry.
Those who work in fundamental physics encounter a world whose large-scale structure (as described by cosmology) and small-scale processes (as described by quantum theory) are alike characterised by a wonderful order that is expressible in concise and elegant mathematical terms...Attempts have been made to explain away this fact. No one would deny, of course, that evolutionary necessity will have moulded our ability for thinking in ways that will ensure its adequacy for understanding the world around us, at least to the extent that is demanded for pressures for survival. Yet our surplus intellectual capacity, enabling us to comprehend the microworld of quarks and gluons and the macroworld of big bang cosmology, is on such a scale that it beggars belief that this is simply a fortunate by-product of the struggle for life."
It is interesting to note that it is easy enough to say that things came to be through a process of chance and time, but when we press the issue of why things are exactly what they are do we find problems with the chance and time explanation. Because of the multitude of things necessary to happen for things to be exactly what they are, the probabilites force an infinite number of universes and an infinite amount of time to come up with the chance happening of what we know to exist the way it does, and as Dr. Polkinghorne points out arranged such that it can be measured and expressed in understandable mathematical forms. We know there has not been infinite time, nor an infinite set of universes so there must be some other explanation.
"I have said that I do not expect top-down agency to be just a conglomerative effect of a lot of little bits of bottom-up interactions (in the way that the temperature of a gas is the average of the individual kinetic energies of its molecules). If holistic causality is present it must be there as a genuine novelty, and the structure of the relationships between the bits and pieces must be open enough to afford it room for manoeuvre. In some sense there must be gaps in the bottom-up account which this top-down action fills in, but those gaps must be intrinsic and ontological in character and not just contingent ignorances of the details of the bottom-up process. They must be 'really there' if they are to provide the causal joint for which we are looking.
A popular site for such explorations has been the uncertainties of quantum events...The continuing perplexities about the quantum measurement problem remind us that we do not fully understand how the levels of the microworld and the macroworld interlock with each other...The way a chaotic system traverses its strange attractor seems a more promising model fors such open developments, and this has been the basis for my own suggestions. We can consider the many different trajectories through the attractor's phase space (that is, the range of its future possible states) which all correspond to the total energy. Their different forms are understood as arising from the effects of vanishingly small disturbances that nudge the system along one path or another, the diverging characters of these different paths corresponding to the chaotic system's extreme sensitivity to perturbations.
It is this sensitivity that produces the intrinsic unpredictabilities. In a critical realist re-interpretation of what is going on, these epistemological uncertainties become an ontological openness, permitting us to suppose that a new causal principle may play a role in bringing about future developments...Thus a realist reinterpretation of the espistemological unpredictabilities of chaotic systems leads to the hypothesis of an ontological openness within which new causal principles may be held to be operating which determine the pattern of future behavior and which are of an holistic character. Here we see a glimmer of how it might be that we execute our willed intentions and how God exercises providential interaction with creation."
Fascinating stuff really. Behavior at the quantum level is chaotic is unmeasureable, except as a range of possibilities of behavior (called phase range). So there are many possible paths each with their own range of probability, this is the epistemological uncertainty. What Dr. Polkinghorne is saying is that while being epistemologically uncertain provides an ontological openness so that what actually occurs (or put another way, which path in the set of possibilites is actually chosen) can be acted upon by a causal agent outside the system, namely God providing information to direct the process.
These matters are interesting to think about, because we are hit more and more with the advances in science pushing God out and making religion obsolete. It seems the further down science is parsed, into the quantum realm, there is an uncertainty of what might happen coupled with an observation of what actually occurs. Something must move things from the chaotic (or uncertain) to the actual (or real). Because we are discussing acts at the quantum level the causal agent cannot be us, nor does it seem plausible to think it would be "Nature", as it were, as a non-thinking uncaring process for the simple fact that we are thinking moral beings.
I'll end this post with a final quotation from the book from some of the closing remarks:
"The arguments will continue, for deep metaphysical questions do not lend themselves to knock-down answering. There is a reminiscence here of the medievel debates between the realists and nominalists. Nevertheless, I believe there is a much more persuasive case for believing in the reality of the Mandelbrot set then in the reality of the Idea of a lion. There is a realm of physical experience containing sticks and stones. There is also a realm of mental experience containing the truths of mathematics. These are not disjoint realms but they are parts of an interlinked complementary created reality, as our 'amphibious' experience as embodied thinking reeds testifies, and as is also witnessed to by the 'unreasonable effectiveness' of mathematical pattern as the clue to the structure of physical law. I believe that mathematics provides a powerful - and for a scientist, readily accessible - encouragement to eschew physical reductionism and to embrace a generous view of the mental/material nature of reality."
Monday, March 8, 2010
What's It All About
I read this article in the local paper today and found myself wondering how someone could make such a statement. Speaker Pelosi commented, when questioned about the dissention present even within the Democratic party concerning the language and logistics of monies going toward abortion in the current version of the health bill, "This is not about abortion" and "This is a bill about providing quality affordable health care for all Americans."
The temptation in light of comments like those it to go after Speaker Pelosi, but the real discussion needs to take place in the real of ideas and foundational beliefs. I asked myself immediately how one could seriously suggest, after members of one's own party affiliation say quite clearly that they will not vote for the bill because of the current language regarding abortion, that the bill is not about abortion. If the bill had nothing at all to do with abortion, then all language that hinted at abortion could be removed. If the bill had nothing to do with abortion, then not one single dollar would need to be appropriated to anything related to abortion. The fact is the bill does contain language and assigns dollars to abortion.
I wish that it were in fact the case that abortion had nothing to do with this bill. The fact is that the bill is about abortion. It is about the national economy. It is about American liberty. When a bill is proposed as "health care overhaul" or "health care reform" it is by definition about all issues of health care and all the intended and unintended consequences stemming from passage of that bill.
What I believe comes through loud and clear is the post-modern mindset that has pervaded the American mind today. Speaker Pelosi was in effect saying, was "This is a bill about providing quality affordable health care for all Americans to me." (additional words and emphasis mine). Post-modern thought would tell us that the individual defines the terms and definition and truth of an issue. For Speaker Pelosi the health care bill is just about making every visit to the hospital a small cost for anyone, no matter who crosses the threshold of the health care provider, so that's all the bill is about. For another person, however, the bill is about abortion. For another it is about ecomonic concerns (how do we pay for it all).
Our culture tells us that an issue is only what we make it to be, each individual is sovereign over the truth of an issue. Obviously this is not the case. With a bill taking more than two thousand pages to cover, the health care bill is about a great many things. What inevitably happens in the post-modern mindset is a reductionism. We are going to completely overhaul the health care system of the United States of America, it takes a 2000 page bill to begin to address the issue and yet it is simply "...a bill about providing quality affordable health care for all Americans."
Whether the bill passes or not, whether it will be helpful or not, whether it will accomplish what it is intended to accomplish or not I cannot say; prediction is terribly difficult, especially prediction about things in the future. What is certain is that the bill is about abortion. Up to and until all language and all appropriations for the funding of abortion procedures is removed in their entirety is removed from the bill, it will continue to be about abortion, along with a host of other issues. We should at least confront the truth. Push the bill anyway, confirm that the bill does concern abortion and that the President, his cabinet, the House and Senate supporters are all aware of it and demand its passage anyway and at least an honest vote can be taken. At this point we are left to ask, what is it about the abortion issue that is so devisive? Why are there those in the democratic party so opposed to a bill they have admittedly pledged to support except for this language? Why are all the questions regarding abortion being asked? I think most know the answer to those questions and that it's clear the issue is about abortion.
The temptation in light of comments like those it to go after Speaker Pelosi, but the real discussion needs to take place in the real of ideas and foundational beliefs. I asked myself immediately how one could seriously suggest, after members of one's own party affiliation say quite clearly that they will not vote for the bill because of the current language regarding abortion, that the bill is not about abortion. If the bill had nothing at all to do with abortion, then all language that hinted at abortion could be removed. If the bill had nothing to do with abortion, then not one single dollar would need to be appropriated to anything related to abortion. The fact is the bill does contain language and assigns dollars to abortion.
I wish that it were in fact the case that abortion had nothing to do with this bill. The fact is that the bill is about abortion. It is about the national economy. It is about American liberty. When a bill is proposed as "health care overhaul" or "health care reform" it is by definition about all issues of health care and all the intended and unintended consequences stemming from passage of that bill.
What I believe comes through loud and clear is the post-modern mindset that has pervaded the American mind today. Speaker Pelosi was in effect saying, was "This is a bill about providing quality affordable health care for all Americans to me." (additional words and emphasis mine). Post-modern thought would tell us that the individual defines the terms and definition and truth of an issue. For Speaker Pelosi the health care bill is just about making every visit to the hospital a small cost for anyone, no matter who crosses the threshold of the health care provider, so that's all the bill is about. For another person, however, the bill is about abortion. For another it is about ecomonic concerns (how do we pay for it all).
Our culture tells us that an issue is only what we make it to be, each individual is sovereign over the truth of an issue. Obviously this is not the case. With a bill taking more than two thousand pages to cover, the health care bill is about a great many things. What inevitably happens in the post-modern mindset is a reductionism. We are going to completely overhaul the health care system of the United States of America, it takes a 2000 page bill to begin to address the issue and yet it is simply "...a bill about providing quality affordable health care for all Americans."
Whether the bill passes or not, whether it will be helpful or not, whether it will accomplish what it is intended to accomplish or not I cannot say; prediction is terribly difficult, especially prediction about things in the future. What is certain is that the bill is about abortion. Up to and until all language and all appropriations for the funding of abortion procedures is removed in their entirety is removed from the bill, it will continue to be about abortion, along with a host of other issues. We should at least confront the truth. Push the bill anyway, confirm that the bill does concern abortion and that the President, his cabinet, the House and Senate supporters are all aware of it and demand its passage anyway and at least an honest vote can be taken. At this point we are left to ask, what is it about the abortion issue that is so devisive? Why are there those in the democratic party so opposed to a bill they have admittedly pledged to support except for this language? Why are all the questions regarding abortion being asked? I think most know the answer to those questions and that it's clear the issue is about abortion.
Friday, March 5, 2010
A Ship at Sea
I heard two reports on the radio on my way into work today that caught my ear. I read a bit more on one of those reports in the local newspaper. Both deal primarily with the issue of ethical behavior, and both are concerned with members of the United States government. Links to both reports are found below:
Charles Rangel Ethics Probe
Sexual Harassment Allegations
My intent here is not to speak specifically to the details of either of these pending issues and investigations, but rather to express some more general concern about ethics and ethical behavior. By way of completeness, links are below to both the House and Senate committees on ethics:
House Ethics Committee
Senate Ethics Committee
Before lighting into a discussion, it is usually helpful to define the terms.
ethic - the body of moral principles or values governing or distinctive of a particular culture or group.
ethics - a system of moral principles.
ethical - pertaining to or dealing with or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.
So, when we hear radio reports, or read news articles on ethical behavior or possible ethical violations or incidents being turned over for review to members of an ethics committee; what we need to ask ourselves is what set of moral principles are assumed to govern the particular group. The importance here is absolutely critical. How the deciding body, committee, group, or individual determines ethical behavior is based on the ethic that is espoused by the body, committee, group or individual. Put another way, what moral principles are assumed as the basis upon which to confer a decision of ethical behavior. We can further parse the question down to the most basic and fundamental question: What is the standard of morality assumed by the body, committee, group or individual? One could also get at the same foundational assumptions by asking what worldview is adopted by the body, committee, group or individual.
This is the focus of my concern. If an ethic is a body of moral principles or values, then what is the underlying concept of morality? In this case, we are concerned with the United States government and what the underlying system of morality is used to make decisions regarding right and wrong conduct. A detailed view of the current ethical system, and the moral basis for that system, begins with a look at the Ethics Manual for the Senate Special Committee (accessible by the Senate link above).
Decisions are made not solely dependent on laws currently on the books. The committe recognized that there could not be a law or provision included to stave off any and every conceivable breach of conduct. It is worded thusly on page 12 in the Preface: "...the Federal statutes and Senate Rules to which most of this manual's discussion is devoted, are but a part of a wider body of ethical standards related to service in the Senate." And is further described in Appendix E on page 433: "The phrase 'improper conduct' as used by S. Res. 338 can be given meaning by reference by generally accepted standards of conduct, the letter and spirit of laws and Rules, and by reference to past cases where the Senate has disciplined its Members for conduct that was deemed improper, regardless of whether it violated any law or Senate rule or regulation."
The following link gives a detailed development of the history and enforcement of ethical standards in congress:
Enforcement of Ethical Standards in Congress
James Madison and Alexander Hamilton are cited as forerunning founders speaking to the issue of Congress self-governing and internally policing its behavior and conduct. Specifically, Federalist Paper No. 57 is referenced. Let's look at Federalist Paper No. 57 in more detail. James Madison (the so-called 'Father of the Constitution') authored this paper as one in a succession of 22 consecutive publications on the topic of how to combine "stability and energy in government, with the inviolable attention due to liberty and to the republican form." Particularly he speaks in the essay at hand to the proposition that representatives will accurately reflect the will of the people. Madison says, "If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and, above all, the vigilant and manly spirit that actuates the people of America - a spirit that nourishes freedom, and in turn is nourished by it. If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be able to tolerate anything but liberty." What a telling statement. Without a law that every person in the entire nation recognizes and is obliged to live by, then liberty is lost. What is this law that is applicable to every citizen in America to which everyone is obliged to adhere? What is this spirit that is vigilant and that nourishes freedom? Let's look at what Madison believed and based these statements.
In his 'Memorial and Remonstrance', Madison says, "Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governer of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the general authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign." In other words, before any man or woman can be bound by right conduct there must be allegiance pledged to a morality, a moral system, a moral law that is transcendent over himself/herself, the society and the government. A moral system outside himself/herself but to which he/she is obliged to adhere. A brief study of the life and history of James Madison makes clear he saw this Universal Sovereign as the God of the Bible, as revealed in the Old and New Testament. In other words, God established an absolute moral order to which all are bound, and on which ethical decisions must be based that is transcendent over man. That is the basis on which decisions on ethical behavior are to be based, and that is how this country was founded.
The fact that this nation was based on an understanding of a natural law that was established by God that every human being was obliged to follow is indisputable. This does not mean that every citizen of America has to be Christian. The founders were clear in their upholding the position of liberty and that each man must act in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience. However, the nation was founded and the government based on the understanding of a natural law established by God to which every person was obliged to adhere. That is the moral system by which ethical standards in this nation are to be based.
Now, one might argue that those ideas are antiquated, out of date, and due to the advances in science and technology the United States has moved away from those principles, "evolved" if you will to a new understanding. I might be inclined to agree that due to a secularization of American thought, a privatization of moral values and the onslought of the belief in the relativism of truth that seems to have pervaded our entire culture that a growing number of people, and perhaps even the majority of the leaders of this nation might not hold to the original concept of what binds ethical decisions. If this is the case, however, our situation is dire. If the non-theist, the naturalist, the materialist view of ethics is adopted then tyranny, not liberty is the inevitable result. If we are all here by some cosmic accident, if there is no good reason why we are here as opposed to not being here, if there is no ultimate purpose or meaning in life, if there is nothing that transcends natural processes, if our thoughts, feelings, reasoning, and moral positions are nothing more than the product of DNA then all decisionsa are arbitrary and capricious and we are reduced to a system of might makes right. If there is no absolute moral law to which all are obliged to adhere, then what is unethical consists entirely on what is currently socially acceptible or more broadly whatever anyone can get away with without being caught. A Represenative or Senator, or citizen in this nation for that matter, would not be acting unethically to lie, cheat, steal, bribe, backstab, or use whatever means inside or outside any law to do whatever they wanted, their problem would be simply that they got caught doing something that those in charge had arbitrarily decided might harm someone else (using only their definition of harm, as others may not think that same action harmful).
C.S. Lewis wrote an illustration once of a ship at sea. He said that there are three things the ship had to be concerned with: how to keep the ship from sinking, how to keep from bumping into other ships, and why it was out there in the first place. Our country was founded by understanding why we are out here in the first place, then determining how to keep from sinking and finally moved on to how to keep from bumping into other ships. They were right. We are moving dangerously close to the untenable position of declaring there is no reason for us to out here, that it ultimately doesn't matter whether we sink or sail, and then attempt to come up with some legimate reasons and procedures for avoiding other ships.
Charles Rangel Ethics Probe
Sexual Harassment Allegations
My intent here is not to speak specifically to the details of either of these pending issues and investigations, but rather to express some more general concern about ethics and ethical behavior. By way of completeness, links are below to both the House and Senate committees on ethics:
House Ethics Committee
Senate Ethics Committee
Before lighting into a discussion, it is usually helpful to define the terms.
ethic - the body of moral principles or values governing or distinctive of a particular culture or group.
ethics - a system of moral principles.
ethical - pertaining to or dealing with or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.
So, when we hear radio reports, or read news articles on ethical behavior or possible ethical violations or incidents being turned over for review to members of an ethics committee; what we need to ask ourselves is what set of moral principles are assumed to govern the particular group. The importance here is absolutely critical. How the deciding body, committee, group, or individual determines ethical behavior is based on the ethic that is espoused by the body, committee, group or individual. Put another way, what moral principles are assumed as the basis upon which to confer a decision of ethical behavior. We can further parse the question down to the most basic and fundamental question: What is the standard of morality assumed by the body, committee, group or individual? One could also get at the same foundational assumptions by asking what worldview is adopted by the body, committee, group or individual.
This is the focus of my concern. If an ethic is a body of moral principles or values, then what is the underlying concept of morality? In this case, we are concerned with the United States government and what the underlying system of morality is used to make decisions regarding right and wrong conduct. A detailed view of the current ethical system, and the moral basis for that system, begins with a look at the Ethics Manual for the Senate Special Committee (accessible by the Senate link above).
Decisions are made not solely dependent on laws currently on the books. The committe recognized that there could not be a law or provision included to stave off any and every conceivable breach of conduct. It is worded thusly on page 12 in the Preface: "...the Federal statutes and Senate Rules to which most of this manual's discussion is devoted, are but a part of a wider body of ethical standards related to service in the Senate." And is further described in Appendix E on page 433: "The phrase 'improper conduct' as used by S. Res. 338 can be given meaning by reference by generally accepted standards of conduct, the letter and spirit of laws and Rules, and by reference to past cases where the Senate has disciplined its Members for conduct that was deemed improper, regardless of whether it violated any law or Senate rule or regulation."
The following link gives a detailed development of the history and enforcement of ethical standards in congress:
Enforcement of Ethical Standards in Congress
James Madison and Alexander Hamilton are cited as forerunning founders speaking to the issue of Congress self-governing and internally policing its behavior and conduct. Specifically, Federalist Paper No. 57 is referenced. Let's look at Federalist Paper No. 57 in more detail. James Madison (the so-called 'Father of the Constitution') authored this paper as one in a succession of 22 consecutive publications on the topic of how to combine "stability and energy in government, with the inviolable attention due to liberty and to the republican form." Particularly he speaks in the essay at hand to the proposition that representatives will accurately reflect the will of the people. Madison says, "If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and, above all, the vigilant and manly spirit that actuates the people of America - a spirit that nourishes freedom, and in turn is nourished by it. If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be able to tolerate anything but liberty." What a telling statement. Without a law that every person in the entire nation recognizes and is obliged to live by, then liberty is lost. What is this law that is applicable to every citizen in America to which everyone is obliged to adhere? What is this spirit that is vigilant and that nourishes freedom? Let's look at what Madison believed and based these statements.
In his 'Memorial and Remonstrance', Madison says, "Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governer of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the general authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign." In other words, before any man or woman can be bound by right conduct there must be allegiance pledged to a morality, a moral system, a moral law that is transcendent over himself/herself, the society and the government. A moral system outside himself/herself but to which he/she is obliged to adhere. A brief study of the life and history of James Madison makes clear he saw this Universal Sovereign as the God of the Bible, as revealed in the Old and New Testament. In other words, God established an absolute moral order to which all are bound, and on which ethical decisions must be based that is transcendent over man. That is the basis on which decisions on ethical behavior are to be based, and that is how this country was founded.
The fact that this nation was based on an understanding of a natural law that was established by God that every human being was obliged to follow is indisputable. This does not mean that every citizen of America has to be Christian. The founders were clear in their upholding the position of liberty and that each man must act in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience. However, the nation was founded and the government based on the understanding of a natural law established by God to which every person was obliged to adhere. That is the moral system by which ethical standards in this nation are to be based.
Now, one might argue that those ideas are antiquated, out of date, and due to the advances in science and technology the United States has moved away from those principles, "evolved" if you will to a new understanding. I might be inclined to agree that due to a secularization of American thought, a privatization of moral values and the onslought of the belief in the relativism of truth that seems to have pervaded our entire culture that a growing number of people, and perhaps even the majority of the leaders of this nation might not hold to the original concept of what binds ethical decisions. If this is the case, however, our situation is dire. If the non-theist, the naturalist, the materialist view of ethics is adopted then tyranny, not liberty is the inevitable result. If we are all here by some cosmic accident, if there is no good reason why we are here as opposed to not being here, if there is no ultimate purpose or meaning in life, if there is nothing that transcends natural processes, if our thoughts, feelings, reasoning, and moral positions are nothing more than the product of DNA then all decisionsa are arbitrary and capricious and we are reduced to a system of might makes right. If there is no absolute moral law to which all are obliged to adhere, then what is unethical consists entirely on what is currently socially acceptible or more broadly whatever anyone can get away with without being caught. A Represenative or Senator, or citizen in this nation for that matter, would not be acting unethically to lie, cheat, steal, bribe, backstab, or use whatever means inside or outside any law to do whatever they wanted, their problem would be simply that they got caught doing something that those in charge had arbitrarily decided might harm someone else (using only their definition of harm, as others may not think that same action harmful).
C.S. Lewis wrote an illustration once of a ship at sea. He said that there are three things the ship had to be concerned with: how to keep the ship from sinking, how to keep from bumping into other ships, and why it was out there in the first place. Our country was founded by understanding why we are out here in the first place, then determining how to keep from sinking and finally moved on to how to keep from bumping into other ships. They were right. We are moving dangerously close to the untenable position of declaring there is no reason for us to out here, that it ultimately doesn't matter whether we sink or sail, and then attempt to come up with some legimate reasons and procedures for avoiding other ships.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)