Guide to Kids' First Amendment Rights in School

http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/public-schools-first-amendment-guide

Am I Married to Christ or Just Having an Affair?

“

Let your religion be less of a theory and more of a love affair.”

~G.K. Chesterson

The above comment raises interesting questions. It easily brings up the meaning of what Christ intended when the Church was described as His Bride in a number of Biblical references. Psalms 19:5; Matthew 9:15 & 25:1; Mark 2:19; Luke 5:34-35; John 3:29; Revelations 21:9.

This loving and sanctified relationship is best described at Ephesians 5:25-33. The description of the ‘marital relationship’ between Christ and His Church is not a mere theory, but is an objective description of what is expected of the person who loves the source of their Faith, and the relationship between these two ‘betrothed.’

The term ‘love affair’ almost doesn’t fit. It is almost tawdry, except to the extent that the author desired to think of religion as sanctified and one of solid covenant as opposed to an affair of sorts.

Moreover, the Chesterson quote introduces a vagueness and unnecessary subjectivity into the relationship between Man and God. It invites the error of unmet expectations into a relationship that is otherwise made clear by historical fact and by Biblical covenant.

In simpler terms, God does not always come through and give me the attention I want, or perceive myself to need, on any given day — nor should I expect Him to, for He teaches and disciplines me according to my actual needs and the covenant we made with each other. Sometimes, the relationship requires that I simply give my life up to Him and “repent in dust and ashes.” Job 42.

Considering myself to be in a “love affair” with Him will certainly not guide me in any truly objective way. The daily expectations of my wife or I can change as our moods change, life circumstances change, and in light of other external factors. Human love affairs are hardly consistent or predictable. What I can expect from God is that he will abide in the covenants made with me through the specific Words he chose to speak to all of us through the Bible. John 1:1-14.

If I do not believe in the covenant, I should not be in the relationship, much in the same way that those who are not willing to stick to their marital vows should not be married and bring judgment upon themselves for such failures. Matthew 5:31-32. But, that I should believe, I am required to bring my ship back to the safe harbor of His Love, Word and Compassion for me, as I would with my marriage and the love that it holds for me.

How can one please God if we do not know what to expect from him? Are His set of expectations merely “theory”? No, he expects us to keep his sayings/commandments and live by them much in the same way couples live out their vows. John 14:15-24.

When viewed from a humanistic stance, the expectation that one’s religion might be viewed as a “love affair” carries with it all of the potential for self interest as a governing force, the expectation of certain results, errors, false perception, and unmet expectations as with most “love affairs.” My love of, and servitude to, Christ must be submissive and humble. As I learn from my submission to His Church, I also learn patience, commitment and humility in my own human affairs. Ephesians 6:5-9. Acts 20:19; Colossians 2:18-23.

In fact, it is no secret that marriages, love affairs, and the entry into any covenant must be based on trust, honor, dignity and like factors. Conversely, such relations require much work, are not always perfect because of the people involved (regardless of the strength of the words of any covenant made between them), and relationships require an element of daily tolerance and forgiveness in order to work.

One of the other thoughts that comes to mind is one which relates to the definition of marriage and love. For me anyway, the purpose of marriage is so that the couple might become one flesh and so that they might put forth future generations. Often, we look to our parents, or at least want to look at prior generations, to learn about what makes for a good relationship. Perhaps this is why we were given the Commandment to honor our parents. Exodus 20:12; Matthew 15:1-6. Indeed, we look for the “things that made it work” for our relatives and friends who have been married for decades. Psalm 45:16-17. Much the same can be said for religion.

Would I look for a community of believers that had stayed together consistently for 2000 years, or would I want one that is unproven or shown to have splintered since its inception? I think that the building blocks for a marriage ought to be based on the objective history of what has kept other marriages together — regardless of whatever cultural, environmental, or financial challenges there were in those relationships.

Religion faces many of these same challenges and how the Faith responds to the challenges will either be honorable or dishonorable. The quality or reliability of the response, on the other hand, can only be looked at on a larger historical level. We often ask ourselves, “Did the couple last?” or we say, “Wow, that couple really made it. What a great marriage. They’ve been through a lot and still love each other.” What of us who have not forgotten the true love that we have for the Faith we had as children? What of that love that is rediscovered, but tempered with years of experience and life before coming back to the beloved?

As with all marriages, there are ups and downs and some of these peaks, separations of time, troughs, and plateaus last for varying periods of time. The issue then becomes more of a matter of assessing whether the “family” survived the challenges and made the most of them over the length of the relationship. As with marriage, the ability to maintain the relationship depends on my willingness to go back to the vows/commitment/covenant that I made in the first place, because I know that the words are objective and lasting — regardless of my own faults in keeping to the words at times.

Or, if I want to look for good or bad examples of relationships, what shall I say of the persons who continually switch love affairs or who are always trying to change their spouses? Is this not what Luther did? He didn’t love the spouse he married (i.e., the Catholic Church). Simply stated, Luther left his beloved for another. See generally, 2 Corinthians 11:1-2.

In a very strong sense, Luther seized upon the weaknesses of a long marriage and, instead of counseling and reforming, chose to be a home-wrecker of sorts. Such efforts were egged on by the likes of Zwingli and Calvin as well. Instead of looking to save the marriage, they tried to find new wives for Christ. Instead of reminding the cheaters (the religious leaders of the Catholic Church), of their vows, the “Reformers” focused on the destruction of the 1500-year-old marriage which had survived many an attack before Luther.

Luther, in a spiritual form of domestic violence, forcefully redefined his covenant and put in motion a view of the “love relationship” between Man and God that splintered, caused division, led to war, and resulted in a complete lack of unity between literally hundreds if not thousands of denominations. Prior to his “love affair” there was a solid bond among believers, and the unity had survived for more than 1500 years, not including the 3500-4000 years of lasting covenants between God and the People of Israel. These relationships and the example they set were not merely theoretical, they were confirmed by the annals of history and the happiness, sorrows, and challenges of the persons who lived in the relationships that form the basis even for our Faith today.

These things being said, it cannot be forgotten that couples need time alone, they often need time to heal spiritual wounds, they need time to reform their relationship so as to bring it into conformity with their original vows. Is a “date-night” not the time for ‘rekindling the fire’ and creating and enjoying memories as to why we love each other in the first place? Can these things not be said about the Church as well? God wants ‘date nights’ with us as well — it’s called prayer. Reform, however, cannot be confused with changing one’s vows. The vows remain the same, but are renewed through peace, reformation, and time.

The Chesterson quote also raises the question: What about the folks who find out that they fell in love, and found out the person/religion wasn’t what they thought they found? What if the beloved is dishonest? What if one spouse matures and the other remain stagnant? What about the spouse who suffers from a disease that inhibit the relationship? No true vow of marriage allows for its breaking through any of these ‘reasons.’ The strength of the relationship can only be defined by the willingness of those in it to remain true to themselves and to the relationship formed through their unique identities, overall purpose, and their complimentary reflections upon each other.

Isn’t Romanticism an ideal (i.e., theoretical)? To be loved, one must have all of the qualities necessary to be capable of being loved. For some, this is a history of honor, a definitive covenant, consistency, loyalty, appearance, accountability, depth, satisfaction, trust, and other such factors. These factors aren’t theoretical — either they exist as a matter of fact or not. Christ’s words and the history of His people are not theoretical. These Words tell us of what He expects of us for so long as we shall love each other, just as my vows tell me what I have promised my wife and she to me.

Let Your Unheard Whispers Be Eternal ...

Though a single voice may not be so much as an unheard whisper in the Universe, your voice has the capacity to bring about eternal change in one to whom you speak in compassion and love.

I Don't Believe in a Personal Jesus !!!

I don’t believe in a “personal Jesus” ! Nor do I believe in your “personal Jesus” !

Believing in a “personal Jesus” is not the same as believing in what Jesus defined himself as and our relationship to that unique identity in Him. We can no more define what Christ is, for purposes of our belief in Him, than Christ could define or alter what His Father is. John 3:18-21; 5:14-18; 8:48-51; 12:47-50; 13:16-20.

Many of us believe that we are Christians because we “believe in Christ.” That works, if one does what a Christian does and believes what a Christian believes (as does the person who got me to think about these issues). John 3:16-21 (read the whole section).

However, what a Christian should do and say can only be figured out by reading the Bible and what it is that Christ did have to say about these elements of our faith. Indeed, he was rather clear about what he expected: He expects us to do the things he told us to do and that, if we fail to do them, we can expect our spiritual structure to be “ruined.” Matthew 7: 21-27.

In fact, He did tell us what to do in ordinary life and he did tell us how to specifically pray. It does seem unfortunate, to me, anyway, that all too many of us have justified our faith by simply reiterating that we have it. This cannot be so. If we do not pray in the manner set forth in the “Our Father” prayer, we have substantially deviated from his command. Matthew 9:8-15. If a Christian knew that he/she believed “in” Christ, this would presumably mean that they knew to pray in that manner. After all, if we do not do the “work” of forgiving others, we lose the person we believe “in.” Matthew 6:14-15.

Likewise, if we do not tend to the needs of the poor, widowed, and hopeless, we lose our own spiritual food and hope in Christ. Yes, that’s right, you get to hang out with the goats as it were. Matthew 25:29-46. It really is this simple. The goats, those who don’t do His commands, don’t get to hang out with Him. John 15:14.

When I say I believe in someone, it should mean I believe in what they have taught me to do or in what they have given me to adopt as a way of thinking/doing. The admired’s name represents much more than an identity, it should represent a distinct body of belief and action — one that I am willing to, and do, adopt in my own life. For a Christian, it seems that believing in Christ means that we have adopted His way, as set forth in writing, about how to live our lives. There could be a hundred people in history named “Jesus,” but only one provides a specific set of beliefs and ways worthy of “believing in.” It is true that “Blessed are they who come in the name of the Lord,” but this can only mean that they are coming at us with the body of beliefs and actions that are packed into the Lord’s name. See, Psalm 118.

For example, if one based a marriage on a simplistic John 3:16 analysis, without reading the remaining verses in the chapter, the marriage would be doomed to certain failure. The most important aspect of marriage is that the couple “knows” each other, not merely by name, but by the expectations that we have of each other. Those expectations are ordinarily most basely defined as trust, honor, respect, and loyalty. In practice, we must know and respect the person to whom we owe these things. John 8:48-51. Often, when one spouse finds out that the other is not what they seem, the provision of these base elements is cut off or severely rationed. If one knew the other truly, then perhaps these elements would never have been provisioned in the first place. On the other hand, knowing the person also allows for forgiveness, which really is the loving cycle of the reprovision of these elements of trust, respect, honor, loyalty, and love. Simply put, the couple must stick to the words of their vows to honestly say that they believe “in” their vows. See, John 15:10-17.

Much in the same way, salvation is a relationship that requires a back and forth about what is expected to be done to show our love and a reiteration of that verbal commitment (altar-call or confirmation) by conduct. Earning and deserving the unity of love in a relationship simply cannot be held on the notion that “I don’t know if I deserve his/her love, but I just know that they have already forgiven me for whatever I have done.”

Even if it were the case that I knew that someone had already forgiven me for something ahead of time, just as I know my own beautiful wife has on many an occasion, it does not mean that I get to stop the works that brought me to and through the relationship up until the point that complete Grace could be extended to me. It doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t look into whether the lover of my soul doesn’t expect more so that I may maintain my relationship with them. I must also understand that if I intentionally fail to do what is expected, then I may be separated from even the one person who loves me more than anyone.

In the case of Christ, it is an eternal separation and I ought to live my life as though an eternal separation from him is just as possible as if I hadn’t believe in Him in the first place. If I wanted to know my wife’s expectations, I am duty bound to communicate with her about that and then live it out. In the case of a Christian, I must read the instruction manual, if you will, and pray for the discernment that must occur as I try to apply the Word that I already have read to my life circumstances. Indeed, I may quickly find out that I do need to pray in a certain way, that I might need to do certain acts, that I may need to regularly confess of my sin, that I may need to remain in constant Communion in body and soul, that I may need to completely surrender my will to that of the other person to find complete freedom to enjoy a selfless relationship with the other person.

Storefront Christianity begins to flourish when each pastor or person starts defining their own “personal relationship” with Christ. The only problem with this is that He may not have defined the relationship the same way. One would have to look at His words to know what he expected(s) of someone who claims to believe in him. He did warn that many would come-a-knockin on his door, but would be denied entrance because they did not know him. Matthew 7:21-23. I think, in this context, that could only mean that He suspected that many would have a superficial understanding of what He was about, or simply just not listen to what he had to say in terms of the type of life and set of beliefs that He expects a believer to have. In fact, Matthew 7:22 makes it very clear that we will be denied admission to Christ because, in part, we “work iniquity.” Also see, John 10:7-21.

How much do I need to do in order to conform my identity, through conduct and practice, to reflect who or what I believe in? That is the question of faith.

I don’t believe in a “personal Jesus.” I believe in the Jesus as he represented Himself, through his words, commands, and deed. (i.e., the truth, the way, and the light). I want Him to define the relationship because of my love and honor of Him. It is not my place to define who He ought to be for me. John 3:16-22; 31-36.

Seventh Person Apprehended in $150 million Fraud Case - KESQ.com Palm Springs, Coachella Valley - Weather, News, Sports:

Seventh Person Apprehended in $150 million Fraud Case - KESQ.com Palm Springs, Coachella Valley - Weather, News, Sports:

A Gen-X Theology: Theological Essays

Here’s a draft of an upcoming book on what it means to be a Gen-X believer in Christ. Contemporary secularism, theism and atheism are discussed at length. Enjoy. This is only a draft – so expect that you might find a few typos or stylistic issues. Publication should occur in December.

A Gen-X Theology: A Series of Theological Essays

The tattoo ink is bleeding out

The tattoo ink is bleeding out

Here's a brief explanation for why it is that so many young people are modifying their bodies and getting tattooed. While the article is written from a conservative, Christian perspective, it does provide a basic explanation for this phenomenon and why self-awareness may reverse the desire to do so.

We're Stirring the Cosmic Soup: A Retort to Pure Atheism

While it may very well be that all that we are nothing but a cosmic soup of atomic matter, it certainly does seem that humanity has the unique ability to stir the pot.

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=98793

As of late, I have given some thought to the arguments of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Edward Wilson, Peter Singer and a number of other players in the current debates about God, morality, and evolutionary biology. Their basic premise seems to be that what it means to be human or a part of nature can only be explained by evolutionary theory. Moreover, this theory leads the to the inexorable conclusion that all can be reduced to an explanation as to how atomic physics have played out in the last however many billion years or so. (See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe ). Nary a thought is given to the real fact that all of us have an epistemological gap between us and the beginning of time, such that no present explanation of our world can suffice to explain it entirely. God does readily fill that epistemological void.

While it may very well be that all that we (and the universe we have our be-ing in) are nothing but a cosmic soup of atomic matter, it certainly does seem that humanity has the unique ability to stir the pot. This ability is seen nowhere else in the 'natural world.' Indeed, it is this very deviation from cosmic destiny, evolutionary theory, or even simple neuro-psychology, that uniquely defines what it is to be human.

Unlike the natural world, we are not dependent on the synchronicity of our coexistence with/in the many moving and interactive elements of the earth's evolved environment. Ostensibly, we are readily able to defy what nature might otherwise dictate. Singer and others have, rather oddly, concluded that behavior which defies nature is somehow ignoble or immoral. Isn't everything "natural," in the sense that all that is must be derivative of evolutionary processes and atomic destiny? What possible moral difference could stirring the pot of cosmic existence make, if we can only have derived our ability to stir the pot from the very substance found in the pot? There has to be a clear distinction made between the subject and objects confronted by human existence.

As an aside, this does not mean that morality would have to be completely dependent on some traditional notion of God. It is simply a matter of distinguishing a difference between intentionality, conscious acknowledgment and the human experience of what is “moral,” from that which is simply a byproduct of evolutionary necessity and atomic structure. Whether these aspects are distinguishable from each other is the question that Professor Dawkins raises. The conceptual parsing done by Dawkins is actually quite admirable and necessary to the understanding of either side's argument.

Moreover, it seems readily apparent that the process of evolution for the 'natural world' moves at the same pace as it has from the beginning of time (barring any natural disasters). Animals and plants are not dependent on us for their existence in a natural state. They only evolve at certain scientifically definable rates in accordance with the environmental variables which govern the process.

Simply put, humans command the ability to even deprive ourselves of the natural synchronicity with nature. It is indeed arguable that we sometimes separate from nature and defy it. At a minimum, we stand out from nature. For example, a lion cannot simply redefine itself or make claim to an existence other than that which it has at its essence. A view toward's Heidegger's philosophy on death would also underscore the reality that humans are perfectly capable of experiencing "unnatural" deaths. Most lions and other creatures will die substantially the same way and of the same causes. Humans, however, bear a capacity for defining even the parameters of our own deaths. Certainly, our nearest alleged "relatives," chimpanzees, can hardly lay stake to such abilities. In other words, there is something about the human experience that can be completely differentiated from that of the animal experience. Indeed, this statement can be made even without accounting for the unique capacity of humans to conceive of [a] God, to understand beauty, and to engage in the fine arts.

Nevertheless, we can rightly claim that humans engage in unnatural acts. They engage in acts that defy natural selection and the otherwise undisturbed progression of the natural world outside of humanity. Animals are not generally self destructive in any real way. Humans, on the other hand, are completely competent to destroy themselves and everything else around them. Indeed, humankind is readily able to change its environment quickly and drastically. And, in so changing, it becomes apparent that we are the only creatures on earth that are capable of self-directed evolution, even to the point of destroying ourselves. Seemingly, evolutionists are ready to deprive of humankind of this sacred and distinct attribute shared by no other living creatures.

Frankly, it seems inconsistent to stand by an evolutionary biology explanans for why things are the way they are, and yet complain about the seemingly out of control, or even allegedly immoral, progress of humanity. Morality simply has no place in a universe driven only by the predisposed nature of atomic structures and the rules of physics to which they are bound. In a very important sense, the effect of human existence on the environment is no less evolutionary or atomically driven than any other process that is claimed to have arisen from a purely evolutionary beginning. That is, if one believes that all must have come from simple existence which led to a graduated complexity.

In order to speak of "moral" behavior, one must first believe that there is some constituent part of the universe which can be moral or act in a moral way. If we rely simply on the synaptic firing of our neurons, coupled with a genetic destiny, it simply does not make sense to incorporate a moral lexicon into human existence. However, if one believes that moral behavior is a step above, or uniquely differentiated from, the coldness of evolutionary survival of the species, it must follow that one believes that there is a higher arche to the human existence. Whether this is attributable to God or a higher being/be-ing (a template for higher being or a more complex nature outside of the natural rules that apply to all other creatures), or not, seems to be the real question.

There are a good number of evolutionary biologists and philosophers of our time who readily conclude that all of human existence can simply be explained by reference to the primordial atomic soup from which all has evolved. They do not explain where the atomic structure/fabric came from, they do not explain the source of the energy driving all that is, they ignore or gloss over the origins of art and beauty, and they completely ignore the obvious fact that the human line of species significantly deviates from otherwise predictable genetic destinies or even basic natural evolution of the rest of nature and its evolving complexity.

At first glance, the basic problem with evolutionary biology is that it rests upon what appears to be a purely linear view of the time-space continuum. This purely linear view adds an unnecessary viscosity to the stream of the cosmos and nature itself. The evolutionists view does not account for the fact that all matter, or representations of matter, derive from an admittedly common source and theoretical moment of being put in motion. That is, all things that can be perceived in the real world are the same age by reference to atomic matter, interactivity, and movement of the cosmos.

The only difference between one atomic structure and another is the 'present' constituency of the thing perceived. Under a non-linear view of time, it may just be the case that the "age" of things is a function of where they are in the movement of the "cosmic swirl." An evolutionist should not confuse the properties of age with actual age -- if time can even be said to be a good structure for cosmology. If there was a single moment of creation, moving forward, differing "ages" of the atomic world's constituents are not so obvious as to merit the conclusion that the universe actually is 13.7 to 37 billion years old or any other specific age for that matter. If, at the time the cosmos was put in motion, certain aspects of reality were given characteristics in their atomic structure that give off the impression of being "older," it may simply be that the evolutionist has been fooled in much the way a purchaser of art might be fooled by the acquisition of a good faux painting. The thing acquired or perceived has all of the characteristics, but is lacking in the need of its original creator and an understanding of the process leading up to the perceived masterpiece.

In other words, the moment of creation may simply have been a stirring of the pot by an Omnipotent and wholly self sufficient Primary Mover. A cyclical or interwoven time structure is not the same as a linear structure which starts from a given point and brings us to something called "today." The 'swirl' of the cosmic mass we call reality should not be confused with a purely linear view of reality, upon which evolution must rely (i.e., reliance on a Big Bang, primordial soup, then various periods of evolution/advancement of varying species). Obviously, if linear time is the framework for the edifice of evolution, there is a strong likelihood that evolutionary theory is defectively constructed.

Additionally, it seems that the atheist opposition confuses their perceived improbability of God with ultimate exclusion from the range of all possibilities. In the view of Dawkins and his company, it is nearly an absolute truth that God does not exist. Were it the case that Dawkins could overcome the long standing objections that might be made by George Berkeley as to the importance of human perception in all of this, perhaps a better argument could be made. However, Dawkins and his crew presuppose the validity and concrete values of their perceptions and just assume that a consensus gentium argument will carry the day because a vast number of other evolutionary biologists happen to agree on the notion that God, Creationism or Intelligent Design are improbable or altogether wacky. Solipsism remains a strong enemy of confidence in the truth values of our own perceptions. In fact it does seem that the utility and efficacy of certain "memes" bears out this very problem. Cultural evolution is a product of passed on perception, without necessary regard to or of principles deriving from mathematics or physics.

In order for anyone's argument to work with respect to great cosmological arguments, it does seem that the veil of basic human perception must first be torn and put aside in favor of an unobstructed view of reality. Humanity has proven itself quite incapable of divesting itself from its condition as a status which depends purely on the senses and humanized logic. Professor Dawkins and his ilk may be assured that just as great a number of scientific theories have fallen, after ready acceptance by consensus, as have arguments for the existence of particular gods or ontologies. In large part, it seems that the human defect of limited perception is the cause of a great number of these many failed scientific theories throughout history. Indeed, it seems apparent that our singular or collective experiences limit the conclusions to which we may arrive. Experience naturally limits the parameters of what we can actually know. Admittedly, the breadth of one's "experience" can be widened with knowledge/exposure to mathematics, physics, chemistry, theory of biology, philosophy, and other areas of learning. However, the expansion of theory is dependent on the limits of our own personal knowledge and that of our colleagues in thought. The limits of humanity do not give way simply because one believes in evolutionary biology.

Father Time has proven himself to be a bitter enemy to the life span of most scientific theories. As human perception 'evolves,' scientific theories die. Sometimes they die by the weight of their own complexity or the simply are shown to be inconsistent with the collective perceptions of an advanced humanity. Oddly, however, the explanatory value of a higher cause or higher being has not died since the conceivable beginnings of human thought about the source of our being and the reasons for our existence. This may be simply because a belief in God does provide a fabric to all that is. Or, it may just as well be that the vast majority of humans have perceived something that can only be described as God. For as many scientists and theologians as there have been in history, there have probably been nearly as many fools among them.

The pervasive perception of God, or the empirical basis for the use of a word such as "God," cannot be simply disregarded. Simply because Dawkins has not personally perceived something that might be called God does not allow him to summarily dispense with any Wittgensteinean objections as to the limits of our language and ability to articulate what we experience. It is undeniably the case that the Judeo-Christian view of the world has rather successfully sufficed to unite an advancing/progressive group of humans, indeed the entirety of Western Culture, of which Professor Dawkins would be a participant. The "memes" of, or which are, Christianity have proven to be a rather powerful force by any account. See generally, John 1:1-4 (KJV).

It seems to me that the evolutionists of our time ought to give some minor consideration to the thought that the theoretical explanans and the actual explanandum of human existence are conceivably different. If truth be the sum of its complete, necessary and agreed upon conditions, the evolutionary biologists/theorists have plenty of agreement, but could not possibly have a complete or necessary epistemological basis for the ultimate truths they espouse. Admittedly, the same applies for a strict historical or epistemological view of Christianity.

In the case of both Evolutionary Theory and the belief in God, there is indicia of pure religion. Religion requires certain elements, which appear to be: 1.) A redemptive or explanatory story for what is; 2.) An explanandum/definiendum which outside of complete human perception or experience; 3.) Preachers and prophets of the truth or content contained within the explanans/definiens; 4.) A body of the faithful who simply may have no epistemelogical basis for a belief in what is explained or the explanation itself; 5.) A desire to operate by explanatory fiat or ultimatum. Zealotry on behalf of any such religion can lead to discord and unnecessary viscosity in the stream of otherwise valuable arguments. Certainly, both sides of the Intelligent Design argument seem perfectly capable and willing to lift the sword toward the other.

Or it may very well be that the enemies of God are simply asking the wrong questions even about their own existence and be-ing (Dasein) in the Heideggerian sense. Perhaps it is just that they think it important to "stir the pot" in the proverbial sense. But what sense does it make to stir the pot if you're in it?



forex

If I Really Wanted to be Like Him

Why did even Mother Teresa see herself as wholly inadequate as a Christian? This is a piece that contemplates what it would really be like to be "Christ-like." The term has almost become mantra-like in church sermons, contemporary writings, and in daily parlance. While chanting the mantra, we all fail to be consistently compassionate, healing, and strong in word. The Book of Mark, the shortest of the gospels, reflects a man who did much, spoke with simple words, and made a 2000-year impact. It becomes painfully obvious that only He could have done what is described and that we each get to experience but a small range of these attributes in our entire lives. I could not think of a single person in history who has done all of the things described. Most of us are marked by just a few highlights in our social lives.

If I really wanted to be like Him.
Taken from the Book of Mark

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Be baptized with the Spirit
Be tempted, not fail, and be ministered unto by Angels
Call others to join me in sharing the Truth

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Teach in the holiest of places without fear
Cast out evil without hesitation
Use Truth with clear authority

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Have others be amazed at my humble authority
Heal others in body and spirit
Cause evil to crumble at the sight of me

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Find quiet places to pray
Travel everywhere to spread the Truth
Be moved with compassion at the sight of another’s need

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Be willing to see the faith others have in me
Speak powerful words with authority
Be quick to heal

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Enjoy the company of sinners so as to heal
Make others whole
Use clear and simple words to convey Truth

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Recognize that Faith starts in a man’s heart
Put the needs of others before religiosity
Be aggrieved at the hardness of men’s hearts

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Allow myself to be betrayed to fulfill my purpose
Maintain a unity of purpose, faith and fortitude
Be willing to be hated for my love of Truth

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Do the will of God
Tell others that they may fail and be forgiven anyway
Value my faith and have it grow strong

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Be able to set even the fiercest storm to peace
Remit evil to its proper end
Let others know what God had done through me

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Give reason for a great many to believe in the Truth I spread
Recognize the least noticeable so that I might heal
Be not afraid and only believe

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Bring peace to those who are weeping and wailing
Be laughed at by others
Do certain works with no intent for them to be known

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Be rejected even by my hometown
Help even a few when mighty works cannot be done
Understand disbelief, but teach anyway

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Share my power with others
Take nothing from others for what I do for them
Be willing to move on when I am not wanted

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Lose my friends’ life because of our Faith and the Truth
Associate with those who are just and holy
Show respect for the lives of others

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Give reason for many to hear the Truth I speak
Shepherd in a way that much is learned by the sheep
Provide much to others from very little

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Spend quiet time in the mountains for prayer
Walk on water
Be of good cheer and not be afraid

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Point out hypocrisy in order to reveal Truth
Confront others with Truth
Identify evil and rebuke it

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Let the healing of others be accompanied by power
Give reason for someone to stay days with me to hear Truth
Ignore requests for purposeless demonstrations of power

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Remind others of the Truth when they fail to see it
Use my power according to specific needs of others
Allow others to acknowledge power given to me

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Be willing to accept the hour and purpose of my death
Reward those who abide in Truth
Punish those who try to shame the Truth

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
See the power of the Kingdom of God
Spend time with my friends in the mountains
Be transfigured as pure and among the Prophets

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Heal the wayward child, even when his parent cannot
Recognize the value of prayer and fasting
Know that I might die so as to be risen

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Protect the innocent faith of a child
Reward the loyalty of others
Give instruction so as to have others avoid destruction

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Remind others that marital divorce is a form of judgment on ourselves
Protect the sanctity of marriage
Identify adultery as the evil that it is

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Respect the innocent faith of children
Take children up in my arms
Bless children

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Give instruction on the inheritance of Eternal Life
Remind others that money isn’t everything
Know that all things are possible with God

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Know that the first shall be last, and the last shall be first
Accept that I might be mocked, spit upon, killed, and be risen again
Give myself as a ransom for others

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Let the faith of others be the cause of healing
Fulfill the prophesies of old in detail
Take command over the prophecy of salvation

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Cast out those who would use the church for personal gain
Cause others to fear me because of sound doctrine
Know that the Father will forgive us as we forgive others

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Have my authority questioned time and again
Not answer foolish questions
Give others reason to know I have spoken the Truth to them

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Advise others to respect the authority of government
Remind others that they may become as the angels in heaven
Know that we have the God of the living and not the dead

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Have others put God before all -- with all that they are
Have others love each other as themselves
Give the utmost value to those who abide in love

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Be wary of those who make much ado of their position in life
Give value to sacrifice over wealth
Know that those who believe in the Truth may suffer for it

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Know that a day of reckoning is afoot
Know that my words shall survive the reckoning
Be prepared at all times for the time of judgment

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Accept the humble anointing of another
Give legacy unto humble acts
Prepare a supper for my friends that they may know of salvation

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Accept that I will be denied
Have my soul be sorrowful at the cost of sin
Spend time asking God what my purpose is

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Have my purpose be fulfilled
Be tried before the authorities for the Truth I am
Sit on the right hand of the Father

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Be denied
Appear for my sentence
Know that others beg for my death

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Be mocked
Be cut with a crown of thorns
Be beaten

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Be crucified
Suffer the death given to criminals
Cry with a loud voice and give up the ghost

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Fulfill the whole of Scripture
See to it that the veil of the Temple was torn
Be forever Christ the King

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Be laid in a grave to be forgotten
Give testimony to my nature by being risen again
Let my resurrection be a call to spread the Gospel

If I really wanted to be like Him, I would ...
Give all I am for you

Rich Ackerman 10/11/09

Article on Hope & Faith

"The First Amendment provides a guaranty that we might be able to engage in higher Reason even when we fail to desire the sanctity of our freedoms."

Click on link for article published in Riverside Lawyer, October 2009.

Higher Being through Humility

People always say that, "You have to believe in yourself." This is not true. You have to believe in something higher than yourself so that you have something to strive for. When you only think of yourself, that's about all you get.

Christian Life and Platonic Forms

Lest our Faith become nothing more than a Platonic shadow, we must throw ourselves into the Light of Christ. We must become the Form of our Faith.

Hearing the Call, Defend Something Greater than Yourself

When asked to write an article on religious liberties, I originally thought to give an update on First Amendment jurisprudence and maybe to throw in a couple of quips about the direction the courts have taken on religious freedom. Instead, I find myself struck by the awe of our professional calling under the Constitution. I think about the current state of our moral and financial economies as a nation. Moreover, I think of the political philosophy of Eric Voegelin and his view of what it means to seek the higher order in life and the law.

The solemn oath we have taken as officers of the Court is a serious oath to defend the Constitution and all that it stands for. In my view, the Constitution came from and stands for something much greater than ourselves. Indeed, when we think only of ourselves, that’s about all we get. We must always be willing to think of and be willing to defend something greater than ourselves.

The need to defend free speech, religious freedom, and the right to assemble has never been more critical. We live in a society where values have become relativistic, where morality is centered on individual ‘needs,’ and where economic viability is the test for one’s societal worth. Sadly, the First Amendment often finds itself protected only by those who have a certain political view of what it means and the regular absence of a counter-position is misread as victory or consensus. We also forget that relativism is but a subtle form of anarchy. Yet, fortunately, the objectivity of the Constitution provides a societal solace not found in many other parts of the world.

Moreover, much of the ‘defense’ of the First Amendment has resulted in the conclusion that anything of divinity has no place in public discourse. Religion, faith, and a sense of wanting to restore order have been morphed into a negative, if even reviled, position in contemporary jurisprudence. It should not be so. We all ought to self-examine the purpose of being legal professionals and must strive to zealously defend the First Amendment as though the very progress of humanity depended on our advocacy. Indeed, we can only progress when we seek a higher order beyond our present lot in life. But for the idea of something greater and outside than ourselves, we would have no need or desire for progress as humans. We often forget that the difference between human evolution and natural evolution is that human evolution is generally self-directed. You must know that we can define the parameters of a bright and recovering future. We as lawyers can help define the justice necessary for America’s recovery.

In the case of the American justice system, our higher order is reflected in the language of the Constitution. In this vein, the trier-of-fact's pull toward the higher order can only be had through a tension existing between the conduct that gave rise to the litigation and the law which applies when a given state of events is proved. Each side has a story to tell, both sides are presented and, from the tension between the sides, comes “justice.” The concept of a living justice is a purely noetic experience. Equally, justice must always be reflective of a higher calling toward Reason.

Reason, in the classical sense, is not to be taken as referring to `reason as mere logic or logical constructs'. Instead, "Reason" is a human experiential event, an ever-present "constituent of humanity," and a "source of order in the psyche of man.” With an air of sincere hope, Eric Voegelin saw Man as being able to actually experience and articulate divinity. This experience, is one that comes from the illumination and presencing of both: a.) the disorder which constitutes man's limited spatio-temporal material existence, and; b.) that which causes man to be a questioning being containing the divine within him. Please do not confuse the term “divine” with purely theological connotations. Think of it as more of the essence of what makes Man different than a common animal.

Voegelin's representation of Reason is used here as a paradigm for the workings of a Constitutional jurisprudence. In this vein, all of us called to the profession of law must defend the cornerstone of our higher order, which is the First Amendment. It must also be known that when we fail to defend it, we deny human progress, we deny the opportunity for diversity of thought, and we kill the very spirit of our system of justice.

Historically, it must be acknowledged that the development of the Constitution could not have been anything but a manifestation of America's pull toward the Divine and was reflective of the experience of Reason. The Constitution was not meant to be a mere recital of ideas and concepts that might prove useful in the governance of human affairs in the eighteenth century and beyond.

Presently, it seems that America is in a pull toward the passions of socio-economic existence and we have voluntarily lost sight of the divinity in us. Our present pull toward the darker elements of American humanity amounts to an outright rejection of the Divinity which inspired the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

In my view, the inspiration for the Constitution was an identifiable experience of reality and the "cognitively luminous force" which allowed resistance against the tyranny and disorder of English rule and allowed the founding of a vibrant new democracy. By reflection on the experience that gave rise to the articulations set forth in the Constitution, Americans came to have a guiding force by which they could direct the higher voice of Reason through their unique cultural experiences. This force was a force within them and a force that defined/created them.

Voegelin's notion of Reason is founded on the essential claim that `experiences create concepts.’ In the case of the Constitution, the American experience of the 18th century created powerful political concepts. The human experience of the time, however, was only a medium through which the Constitution could come to be a representation of the higher order giving rise to its possibility as a living documentation of human contact with higher/divine order.

The Constitution, as an instrument of communication, is an accounting of the transcendent experience that the Founders had. It was/is account of that which they believed to be "God-given" or divinely-given. The Constitution contains reflections of the metaxy between Man and the Divine which existed long before the American Revolution and which could not have prevented the split between America and Great Britain. The enactment of the Constitution certainly did not serve to completely disenfranchise men from their passions, enslavement of other human beings, or the need for a physical revolution.

The force that allows the human psyche to resist disorder is called the ever present, but oft hidden, "Nous.” Each of us has Nous within us we participate in the Nous of our times. Nous is reflective of a movement toward higher order. However, as suggested above, the noetic movement toward higher order is countered by a natural human pull toward our primitive passions and the matter which makes for our finite human existence in time and space. According to Voegelin, this creates a tension (i.e., metaxy) between the passions and higher order. As such, we are in a state of existential unrest and do damage to ourselves by failing to recognize the divinity in our human purpose.

Humbly, however, we are to recognize that Man is not self-created nor is Man a self-sufficient being which carries within him/her the ultimate meaning of the universe. Rather, humanity is left with questions about the "ultimate ground" of reality. Our experience is taken to be from the position of being an interrogator of reality. Our ability to articulate perceived answers to our own interrogatories becomes our greatest and most respectable endeavor. This work is most reflective of that which makes us what we are. This ability to articulate with regard to the `process of questioning' allows us to hint at, reflect on and share with others our experience of the "ultimate ground" for our existence, which again, is in us and which created us.

It is our questioning that is, in of itself, reflective of our pull toward that which created us. We know not why we question; Yet, we do know that we are compelled to question. The First Amendment provides a guaranty that we might be able to engage in higher Reason even when we fail to desire the sanctity of our freedoms. By defending that which serves as the force behind our inherent desire to question, we are thinking about the arche' of our humanity. A necessary mode of tension is created between the higher order and our struggle to attain it.

When in good health, our modes of tension can take the forms of hope, faith, love and trust. This includes faith, hope and trust in our fellow man, whether he be Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Atheist, or simply questioning. Moreover, the theophanic events of hoping and believing are not dependent on race, creed, religion, ethnicity, or gender. Justice is the mode of tension in the Noetic-Constitutional experience.

The initial appeal to our divine nature in the development of the Constitution of the United States finds itself in the following language from the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The phrase "self evident" detectably takes on a sense of having truths and knowledge of the divine arise from within ourselves and yet also directly arises from that which allows us to be or that which created the ability for us to see these truths as self evident.

In fact, the serious disorder of the age was reflected in America's claims about the conduct of Great Britain. In point, America claimed that Great Britain was acting against the public good, engaging in invasions of rights, obstructing the administration of justice, plundering and ravaging, burning towns, destroying lives, completing works of “death, desolation and tyranny,” and being "deaf to the voice of justice.”

Assuming these things to be true, with a view toward our own times, it certainly appears that early America did not continue to remain in the apeironic depths of its then extant position in the continuum of human time and space. There were no more house burnings, trials by Church and State, or obvious acts of tyranny following the divine encounter of America. Nor was She limited by any belief that man cannot aspire to the divine.

This Nous of the eighteenth century was again manifest in the language of the Constitution itself. To wit, the following was stated and ratified on September 17, 1787:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution of the United States of America."

The Constitution would then become that "supreme law of the land.” The articulations contained therein would now become the `persuasive force' that would, in Voegelin's terms, illuminate America's existence for its citizens and the world as a whole. The Constitution was now an articulated unit of meaning having arisen from the metaxy of man's human experience and that which caused him to believe that there was a higher order outside of his epistemological footing of the time. Justice would now take place at a new and ongoing politico-metaxy existing at the junction of the Constitution and the conduct of our daily human affairs.

On December 15, 1791, the United States further exhibited its tension toward the ground of its existence by ratifying the Bill of Rights. Among these fundamental rights, and first mentioned, was the right to free speech. This particular right is an ultimate reflection of the experiential phenomena described by Voegelin in that it secured the right of persons to "articulate" their experiences as questioning human beings. Again, we must remember Voegelin's claim that our movements toward the divine ground can only be had through articulation of our experiences. The First Amendment affirms man's questioning nature and so he becomes temporarily vindicated from the disorder and tyranny that began to stifle his questioning existence. America's pursuit of that which was claimed to be "God-given" would then be further vindicated by enactment of the remaining nine Amendments to the Constitution.

Assuredly it seems that the right to be secure in our persons and property, the right to trial by a group of our peers and the separation of Church and State bolster our ability to seek the ultimate ground of our existence on an individual level.

Nonetheless, Voegelin, in his discussion of the Greek experience of Reason, warns us that humans can find themselves distanced from the Nous and Reason when these things are viewed as something wholly abstract and distanced from the realm of the direct human experience of consciously facing off with reality. We begin to develop certain psychopathology when we lose our openness and desire to pursue the divine. Modern America is exhibiting near terminal pathology relative to the Constitution as higher order given by the divine within us. This is a pathology that is manifest by a disrespect for the value of human life, political party agendas (outside a beneficial conservative/liberal politico-metaxy), and the fears of a society governed by fiscal economies.

As mentioned above, Reason comes about through an interactive experience wherein man and his arche are mutual participants at the metaxy between them. The mutuality of the experience makes for healthy existence. When we focus away from the ground, we become philosophically ill.

That which created us is taken to be as much a part of our existence as the human experience of existence itself and thus plays a central role in our healthy consciousness. Undeniably, it seems that consciousness comes into being, that complete consciousness is the prerequisite to experience and that experience of reality is the medium by which we come to acknowledge our consciousness.

We must also realize that we cannot simply reason ourselves out of the horrors of our time. It must be recognized that "reason" (with a small "r") is only a tool by which we can come to interpret the material world around us. It does nothing to bring our attention to that which allows or which created our "reason" in the first place. Focuses on "reason" are only focuses on human interpretation of the world and not on that which is in the world per se'.

Thus, it seems that a philosophical ascent to that which is the higher cause or source is much more in line with the ultimate goal of experiencing mankind as something more than mere matter clashing with other matter in the world of conscious reality. The philosophical ascent is the one that soars on the wings of the tension between that which caused us to be and that which we are. All the while, we must maintain an openness to that which compels us to be questioning beings. "Reason,” as an epochal historical event, is to be taken in an ontological sense and is a process happening in the whole of reality and, when recognized, assists us in rising above the disorder of our material conduct.

Matter, in a sense, becomes a constant: Our interactive and questioning nature, when acknowledged, activated and defended, allows for variables and choices beyond what merely "is.”

Our human be-ing becomes a state of interactive questioning, in the sense of "What might be, besides that which is before me?", Thus, we are moved forward in our be-ing. The First Amendment promotes this process. A passive view of reality would not allow us our individuality or perceived acknowledgment of God-given rights or the Divine or Reason. Denial of the right to question denies our fundamental humanity. Further, the process of questioning is the very eventing of the human consciousness and defines our humanity.

When we solely focus on the mere "matter" of experience or the tools which are used to interpret the matter, we are at most existing at an experiential standstill. A focus on logic, mere sense data, language, passions and scientific method calls us only into the present and past. Questioning is a bridge to the future. Our willingness to defend all questioning provides the necessary materials for this bridge. Although the material necessary to effectuate and answer is within the world, the questioning comes first and is a humanly conscious event beyond the realm of matter.

Again, the Constitution provides an articulation of the structure of government and the relationship of the People to Government. The Constitution wasn't meant to be temporary and, quite properly I believe, we have not treated it as such. The Constitution is a reflection of what America should be. Unfortunately, it is not necessarily a reflection of who Americans are today.

In order to have a truly free society, there must be a mutual participation between us and the spirit of the Constitution. We must recognize the divine nature of others. When officers of court or everyday citizens reject the divine order reflected in them, we become ill as Constitutionally created, inspired, and driven citizens. Notwithstanding, we should not remain in offense of another's rejection of Constitutionality, but must seek the production of faith, hope, love and respect by placing ourselves back into a state of unrest at the metaxy of our daily conduct and the Constitution.

There are such things as justice, love and equity in the world by virtue of our interactive role in the whole of reality. We come recognize that there are such things because we engage in conduct and interaction that is substituted by words like "justice.” It is in the experiences of life that we find justice and, as a lawyers, the Constitution reaffirms our daily purpose. Listen to the call of your profession and defend something higher than yourselves.

A Personal Testimony

Philosophy begins with the experience of human existence. Seemingly, the best impetus for philosophy comes from the horror of human existence and the victories that come from defeating the horror. The ‘good life’ comes from learning how to avoid the horrors.

I was born on May 15, 1969. From what I can tell, life didn’t start off all that well for me. According to my parents’ divorce papers, I was left to lie in my own human waste often enough to cause any social worker at least some real concern. Of course, my mother cannot be much to blame in this matter since she suffered from retinitis pigmentosa, and has suffered from a host of mental problems all of her life. Her own mother apparently committed suicide on a Christmas Eve, and her father died in an alcoholic stupor some years later.

In fact, I suspect that it was an uprising of my mother’s mental disabilities that crushed the marriage of my parents. For better or worse, I was only a few months old when all of this occurred. As an aside, my father was a disabled World War II veteran and suffered from various emotional and physical disabilities as well.

I know I was born into the Catholic Faith and was baptized as such. Much of my childhood memory up to the age of six or seven is clouded at best and probably not relevant to any conversion that I may now tell you of. About the only thing I remember from this time was the constant whippings by my mother as a form of ‘disclipline.’

What I know for sure is that I did attend Catholic school for first grade and went through the sacramental process offered through one’s First Communion. Although I do remember having severe pneumonia at the time, I was aware of the importance of my First Communion and the idea that Christ could be offered to man and child — so long as they stood willing to confess of their sins and at least make a good faith attempt to come before God in as pure a state as humanity could ever offer.

Religion, for many, is a passive experience brought about by adherence to culture and tradition. Rarely is thought given to the idea that Man is capable of a direct and intimate connection with his Maker.

This said, about the same year as my First Communion, I distinctly recall having had a profound conversion experience. Specifically, I remember dreaming, in the grossest of detail, that I had been condemned to hell. The intense flames arose all around me and I could feel the heat as strongly and clearly as I can hear my own voice.

The self awareness of my dire and decrepit human state was overwhelming. I woke up in a profuse sweat and immediately was compelled to bring myself to my knees and pray harder than I had ever prayed even to date. As I prepare this testimony, I still wish that I could find the desire to pray with as much intensity as the child that I once was. Sincere prayer is hard to come by even though answers and blessings from God abound in our existence. As the great revivalist, Charles Finney, suggested, many people don’t remember what they prayed for five minutes later. This may be, in part, why there is such a lack of gratitude amongst humanity’s members. If we actually remembered our prayers, we would be all too aware of the answers that come pouring out of the Divine Grace and Providence of our Maker.

In any event, I remained faithful to my commitment to the Church and was happy to be an altar boy and regularly served at the early morning mass on weekdays before school. Oddly enough, I was even ready and willing to serve at Mass during vacations and other off-times. As I recall, during my years in elementary school, I had formulated the belief that I would become a priest when I grew up. I sincerely had hoped that I would be groomed for St. Michael’s Seminary in Trabuco Canyon, California. However, this never came to fruition because of the many problems that would surface later.

As a pre-adolescent child and aside from a few incidents of extreme violence against me by my mother, I remained fairly free of her mental problems and related iniquities. We survived on welfare income of about $700-800 a month as I recall. My mother, much to her credit, was able to somehow purchase a 900-square-foot or so three-bedroom house in Santa Ana and managed to provide for my brother and me until I was about 13 years old. She had no family here in California. I was lucky enough to have my father. My brother was not so fortunate as to have a father figure in his life during his childhood. However, I was sexually abused by a paternal great-uncle during this time and it took many years to recover from that particular horror.

In any event, I am often taken aback by many of my fellow human beings’ complaints about how they can’t do certain things. Call it a chip on my shoulder, but it does seem odd that a delusional and blind woman could manage to purchase a house by herself, raise two children and somehow manage a household. All the while, we see so many able-bodied humans complaining about what they supposedly can’t do. ‘Can’ and ‘cannot’ are matters of attitude toward life. If Man has free will, it exists only at this level of being able to change our attitude toward what we cannot change.

As indicated below, it seems to me that our purpose in life is to fulfill a God-given destiny and the only thing that matters is our attitude toward meeting the charge of our unique and personal Divine Predestination.

In any event, my brother is three years younger than me. Once I turned about 12 or 13, things became extremely bad. As for myself, I had begun a pattern of drinking during the summer between eighth and ninth grades. I even managed to overdose from alcohol before I reached the ninth grade. Other than a two-week restriction, the overdose incident didn’t get a whole lot of mention and I doubt that my parents ever talked to each other about the event.

My parents maintained a hostile relationship for so long as I can remember. It’s odd that they should have spent so much time berating each other when I was busy boozing it up and enjoying my entry into the world of drugs. I supposed that what happened a decade before between them was much more important than the reality that their 12-year-old son was becoming a drug addict, alcoholic and immorality addict.

The whole drug thing began shortly after becoming a high school freshman. One of the guys in the neighborhood introduced me to “Al,” who worked at the local Jack-in-the-Box. Al introduced me to pot for my first time and I can’t remember it being all that great in and of itself. I think that the violation of my parents’ ostensible trust and my moral upbringing was much more of a high than the drug itself. That said, I ended up dropping out of high school by the time I reached the halfway point in my first year. My attendance, even up to that point, was sporadic at best. I did join in the Academic Decathlon Team, water polo team and swim team, though. That was about the only appearance of normalcy at that time. Oddly, I still have yet to take a formal class in English, Math or History.

By the time spring semester of my freshman year rolled around, I was already tattooed. I paid my girlfriend’s brother a joint for a tattoo of a skull over a cross. By this time, I had already had sex with his 12 or 13-year-old sister and I had managed to get myself well into a strong pattern of drug and alcohol abuse. I would later have a tattoo artist add flames to the skull and cross to further demonstrate my hatred for all that represented my Christian upbringing.

I can only imagine that my youthful hatred for Christianity arose from the fact that many of my mother’s acute episodes with mental illness revolved around religious themes. She would regularly engage in sickly violence, swear, and commit crimes in the name of God and justify her own abuse of my brother and me by claiming that God told her to ‘beat’ us as an act of love. As her mental illness took on even darker tones, she would literally attempt to cast out evil spirits from various household items including the washing machine and my father’s car. Her claimed stigmata was no less disturbing with the blood, screaming, and ‘spiritual’ experiences.

As a child, one can well imagine that the surfacing of a mother’s severe mental problems is not an easy burden to carry. My brother was too young to understand what was going on and probably too innocent to understand the harm that was being caused to the family. It therefore became my responsibility to call 911 and to have my mother committed to a mental facility on more than one occasion.

I can assure you that it is no easy task to call the police and emergency services knowing that they will come out with a gurney and forcefully strap your mother down before your own eyes. You cannot even imagine the fear that was struck in myself and in my brother’s eyes as this all went down time and again.

While the police and others left my brother and me to the care of neighbors or others on occasion, we both eventually ended up being placed in what was known as the Orangewood home for abused children. Can’t say I lasted long. I chose to escape and ended up at a friend’s house. My brother, abandoned by me and the system, ended up in a foster home and eventually was returned to my mother somehow.

It is probably noteworthy to this story that I was arrested some three or four times between the ages of 14 and 16. The charges ranged from possession of narcotics, grand theft, burglary, trespass and other various violations of law. I ended up serving only about two or three months in juvenile hall. In terms of the burglary, I should probably mention that it was my own father that I robbed. Indeed, I encouraged my friends to rob him as well. Needless to say, moral aptitude was not an adolescent specialty of mine.

In terms of my drug use, I regularly used cocaine, marijuana, LSD, and crystal methedrine. I also partook of PCP, mescaline, belladonna, and other drugs as they would be offered through the course of my youth. I even shot up once. I didn’t particularly like the experience of shooting up only because the high came much too quickly. I always enjoyed the feeling of having the high 'come on.' Otherwise, I suppose I could have easily ended up strung out on heroin.

During this time, I enjoyed going to punk shows, hanging out with friends and their drugged out parents, I sported a bleached white mohawk haircut, lived with bikers and meth dealers, got into many fights and just generally looked for trouble wherever we might find each other. I even managed to get shot at during this time and had narrowly escaped a severe jail sentence after being involved in a big drug bust in Santa Ana (while being told to freeze while I was reaching for a gun). Many of my friends ended up on jail, prison, and the victims of addiction. This was normal in our minds.

On other battle fronts, a friend’s mom died of a heroin overdose and a good friend of mine died of the same cause at age 16 or 17. As an ultimate demonstration of my depravity at the time, I even had the moral audacity to literally urinate on another human while they were passed out by a toilet. The human being was my girlfriend at the time. My friend Steve and I took great pleasure in the degradation of her humanity. She later forgave us.

In terms of spiritual events, I attempted to attend church two or three times during this intense period of strife. Once, I thought I was saved at a church in Costa Mesa. Didn’t last long as to the immediate emotions, but the effects were eternal. At another time, I attempted to attend a Catholic service in Garden Grove, but some person passed out in the entryway and the church members were concerned about getting her out of the way so services could begin on time. I suppose praying for one’s soul and health is secondary to punctuality in certain minds of the time. For me, this was but one more turn-off to the whole of Christianity. In fact, this little event managed to keep me away from any church until I was in my mid-twenties.

Once I turned almost 16, I was placed at the Wallace Community Day School in Santa Ana. This was a school designed for children like myself who simply couldn’t handle the normalcy of a regular high school. Here we were allowed to work at our own pace. I excelled in this setting and decided that I would take the California High School Proficiency Exam. I took the test at about age 16 and began attending Santa Ana College later. I received decent grades in most of my classes. Even so, I continued in my self-created courses in drug addiction and alcoholism.

I did well as a philosophy major and had plenty of opportunity to think about theology, ethics and philosophy in general. I was particularly caught up in the debate about determinism. If God knew everything, then it had to be that I had, so to speak, a sticker on my back that says “heaven” or “hell” and I just can’t see it — but, God can see the label and wills it so.

More important to my concerns, if all is predetermined, I can’t be responsible for all of the horrible things I’ve done in life since it was, in theory, already known that I would do them. Under this analysis, accountability and mercy make absolutely no sense.

Nevertheless, its more than 20 years later and I still haven’t got all the answers to the ‘question of determinism.’ What I do know is that the pain of sin can be forgiven and that the forgiveness is available to any ready, willing, and asking person who comes to our Maker with a contrite heart and a desire to change. Nevertheless, glimpses of what appears to be truth are but a nanosecond flash in the darkest caverns of my intellect. Yet at the same time, the Ultimate Truth reveals itself everyday through my family, profession, and interaction with others.

Before completing my studies at the college, I finally stopped smoking pot. It made me feel stupid and out of control so I gave it up ‘cold-turkey’ one day. I may have revisited pot once or twice thereafter. However, I still enjoyed speed and cocaine for a short while thereafter. I quit these substances cold-turkey one day as well. I can see no self-caused reason for my sudden inclinations to quit drugs. Divine Mercy and Intervention are the only possible explanations for my decision to turn away from drugs.

While in college, I also met the person that would become my first wife. My experiences with her have been of the more moving in my life in terms of raw force acting against and framing my sense of morality. Of particular note was the fact that she had an abortion without telling me (before we married) and then later lied about being on birth control after we got married. That particular lie ended up in a second abortion. I haven’t yet fully realized the reasons for my blind allegiance to the causes of such acts.

Oddly enough, I did drive her to and from the abortion clinic the second time. I had decided in my mind that mercy dictated that I overlook the harm that she was causing me in favor of insuring that she was at least safe. Whether or not my apparent mercy was a demonstration of my own lack of self worth or esteem, I suppose, is an open question. I now know that my futile attempts at human mercy and compassion pale before God’s ultimate understanding and mercy in my own life. Such are the beginnings of a philosophy on life and a continuing Testimony.

I am happily married to my beautiful wife Stefanie and have been since 1996. God has blessed us with two daughters and two sons, Hannah, Abigail, Thomas and Timothy. Through them, I have been able to experience the highest that humanly existence has to offer. God has opened a completely new world to me through my family and my wife’s love for me.

I have served the community as an attorney since 1994, began sitting as a part-time judge for the Riverside County Superior Court in 2004, and have worked on a number of very high profile cases affecting our culture (First Amendment, Tenth Amendment, addressing the issue of same-sex marriage, defending the Pledge of Allegiance, fighting the removal of Christian history from public life). The cases given to me to fight have been presented on CNN, KTLA, Fox News, ABC, NBC, The O’Reilly Factor, and hundreds of other media outlets across the entire world.

In sum, the sanctity of our humanity is best realized when we acknowledge that we are not, nor were our parents, or theirs before, self-caused. Our humanity and its value derive from the fact that we were born into the dignity that we call humanity. We were born into the image of a Being much greater than ourselves, thereby allowing us to enjoy our existence and to strive for greatness of spirit. Human dignity does not come from a revolt against our inherent human characteristics. True liberty comes from the acceptance of who we are as we were created. True liberty comes from knowing that we have been designed to complete our God-given destiny. Only by completing our purpose do we give glory unto our Maker.

Denials of our biological and cultural humanity are not implicit in the concept of ordered liberty nor are they reflective of the deep and rich history of our nation. The founders of our nation, including William Penn, Abigail Adams, James Madison, and the others, adopted the position that we are to accept the lot given to us and that no man prevent us from fulfilling our destiny. Again, this is a destiny not chosen by us, but by our Creator.

Those who would suggest that we deny our birth-given sanctity tear away at the very foundations of our nation and even the loosest sense of freedom. The foundations of our nation and community rest, in large part, on the notion that diversity and the marketplace of ideas are best served by self acknowledgment, not self-denial.

Liberty of the Spirit and mind comes directly from the acceptance of that which we do not choose. It is not our choice that we were born male or female, poor or rich, into a certain culture, into a certain age, or that we were born in a certain geographical area. Liberty can be found in the simple acknowledgment that these things matter not to our inherent dignity. Indeed, freedom is not found in forcing another to accept our personal revolts against who we are. Being thrust by birth into a culture not of our own making is not a crutch, but a rich and robust collage of opportunities that came before us and constitutes the fundamental building blocks necessary to the fulfillment of who we were and are at birth.

Indeed, the desperate search for meaning in life and the realization that we are not self-created are mutually exclusive states of mind.

This work is dedicated to the Glory of God, my wife and children, my parents, my brother, my philosophy students of the past years, to Father Jordan, Steve Bleecker, Bernie Luna, Aaron Trujillo, Jim Christian, Robert Putman, Ike Riddle, Jeff Davis, Larry Mendenhall, Terry Mosely, Daniel Guirriere, Paul Tang, and all others who have motivated me to think about my humanity and purpose.

In Lumine Tuo videbimus lumen.

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Guide for Riverside County Residents - Avvo.com

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Guide for Riverside County Residents - Avvo.com

Shared via AddThis

Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables

Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables

Shared via AddThis

What Do I Need to Know About Juvenile Dependency and CPS Proceedings? - Avvo.com

What Do I Need to Know About Juvenile Dependency and CPS Proceedings? - Avvo.com

Shared via AddThis

A Voegelian Analysis of the U.S. Constitution: Between Heaven and the Depths of Hell

I. The State of The U.S. Constitution:
Narrowing the Metaxy Between Us and the Divine

When I, as an attorney, argue a case, I harbor the belief that justice will result. This hope is fueled by the belief that there will be a pull by the trier-of-fact toward a higher order.

In the case of the American justice system, the higher order is reflected in the language of the Constitution. Further, the trier-of-fact's pull toward the higher order can only be had through a tension existing between the conduct that gave rise to the litigation and the law which applies when a given state of events is proved. The law itself is a reflection of the higher order of the Constitution.

In fact, our system of advocacy relies on a balanced tension designed to generate justice. Each side has a story to tell, both sides are presented and, from the tension between the sides, comes justice. The concept of justice can be viewed as resulting from a mini-noetic experience if you will --- the mechanics are the same. It is or should be reflective of a higher calling toward Reason.

In his analysis of the experience of Reason, in the classical sense, philosopher Eric Voegelin instructs us that "Reason" is not to be taken as referring to `reason as mere logic or logical constructs'. Instead, we are provided with "Reason" as a human experiential event, an ever present "constituent of humanity" and as a "source of order in the psyche of man.” This experience is akin to the religious experiences that I have described in earlier chapters.

Quite optimistically and with an air of sincere hope, Voegelin seems to see man as being able to actually experience divinity and begin to articulate his encounter with it. This experience, is one that comes from the illumination and presencing of both: a.) the disorder which constitutes man's limited spatio-temporal material existence, and; b.) that which causes man to be a questioning being containing the divine within him.

In the thoughts that follow, I use Voegelin's representation of Reason as a paradigm for the workings of American jurisprudence --- a jurisprudence resulting from the enactment and enforcement of the United States Constitution.

Particularly, I believe that the development of the Constitution was a manifestation of America's pull toward the Divine and was reflective of the experience of Reason which arose from the disorder of Pre-Revolutionary experience. Further, I believe that the development of the Constitution was an experience of the Divine in early America and not a mere recital of ideas and concepts that might prove useful in the governance of human affairs in the eighteenth century and beyond. Lastly, I feel that we are in desperate need of a re-experiencing that `pull toward divinity' which gave rise to the philosophical/legal articulation of our Founding Fathers and which led them to enact the Constitution.

In our current state of American existence, it seems that we are in a pull toward the passions of our current human socioeconomic existence and have seemingly lost sight of the divinity in us --- a divinity that allowed America to arise out of the disorder that gave rise to its creation as a unique and separate sovereign in a world of disorder. Indeed, I think that our pull toward the darker elements of American humanity amounts to an outright rejection of the Divinity which inspired the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and our general freedom.

II. A General Overview of The
Experience of Reason & The Coming
of the United States Constitution

Inasmuch as the Greeks were, in finding Reason, "engaged in an act of resistance against the personal and social disorder of their age,” so were the Founding Fathers of our country.

Instead of the Greek philosophers' Reason, the Founding Fathers articulated the experience of divinity reflected in the language of the Constitution. For America, the Constitutional inspiration became an identifiable experience of reality and the "cognitively luminous force" which allowed resistance against the tyranny and disorder of English rule and allowed the founding of a new democracy in the world.

The human course of events and experience leading up to the Constitution allowed Americans to "recognize the phenomena of disorder" that prevailed over early America, as did the Reason of the Greeks allowed a guiding luminosity for their disordered society. By reflection on the experience that gave rise to the articulations set forth in the Constitution, Americans came to have a guiding force by which they could direct the higher voice of Reason through their unique cultural experiences. This force was a force within them and a force that created them.

Voegelin's notion of Reason is founded on the essential claim that `experiences create concepts'. In the case of the Constitution, it also seems that the American experience of the 18th century created what would become constitutional concepts. However, the experience was only a medium through which the Constitution could come to be a representation of the higher order that gave rise to its possibility as a living documentation of man's contact with higher/divine order.

America could only reach above and beyond its oppression to higher ideals of freedom and governance. The source of such higher order could not come from the passions or disorder of the time but could only be recognized as coming from that which allows for us to have a sense of higher order and civility even if the same is not present in our experience of a given time. It was a `moving toward' the higher order as something separate and apart from that which merely `was' at the time.

As was the Greeks' Reason, so too was the ratification of the Constitution an epochal event in world history. This was an experiential event born out of a hypersensitivity and pull to thinking about what ideal rights or God-given rights should be afforded to a citizenry. These higher ideals or rights were not in place or being experienced at the time. The perceived rights themselves did not find themselves or inhere, per se', in the realm of experience until the disorder of the time was transcended.

The Constitution was a human historical event brought about through human conduct and reaction to such conduct.

The Constitution became no mere recital of the logical or necessary constructs which might be placed on a society in order to have it surface from the apeironic depths of tyranny and political disorder. As shown below, the enactment of the Constitution was, seemingly, just as much an acknowledgment of the divine in us and which created us as was Voegelin's account of the Greek experience of Reason as a fundamental constituent of humanity.

The Constitution, as a written instrument of communication, is an accounting of the transcendent experience that the Founding Fathers had and used to rise from the disorder of their time. In fact, it is account of that which they believed to be "God-given" or divinely-given.

As the central symbol of the Greek's Reason was the ‘philosopher,’ the central symbol of the Constitution became the ‘freedom-loving American.’

Much like Reason, the Constitution became an irreversible event in history but contained reflections of the metaxy between man and the divine that existed long before the American Revolution and which did not and could not have prevented the split between America and Great Britain. The enactment of the Constitution certainly did not serve to completely disenfranchise men from their passions, enslavement of other human beings, or the need for a physical revolution.

Instead, constitutional Reason became a new "persuasive force" in American experience. Necessarily, an analysis of how Reason or the Constitution came to be persuasive forces is warranted.

III. The Development of Reason

For the Greeks, the force that allowed the human psyche to resist disorder was called "Nous.” Each human was considered to have Nous within them and was thought to participate in Nous. Nous is reflective of a movement toward higher order.

However, the noetic movement toward higher order is countered by a natural human pull toward passion and the matter which makes for our finite human existence in time and space. According to Voegelin, this creates a tension between the passions and higher order. As such, we are in a state of existential unrest.

Further, we are to recognize that man is not self-created nor is man a self-sufficient being which carries within him the ultimate meaning of the universe. Rather, humanity is left with questions about the "ultimate ground" of reality. Our experience is taken to be from the position of being what one might refer to as an, "interrogator of reality.” Our ability to articulate perceived answers to our own interrogatories becomes our greatest and most respectable endeavor and is most reflective of that which makes man what he is. This ability to articulate with regard to the `process of questioning' allows us to hint at, reflect on and share with others our experience of the "ultimate ground" for our existence, which again, is in us and which created us.

It is our questioning that is, in of itself, reflective of our pull toward that which created us. We know not why we question; Yet, we do know that we are compelled to question.

By thinking about that which serves as the force behind our inherent desire to question, we are thinking about the arche' of our humanity. The divine ground reflects itself in us by the order (not mere logical order) of our thinking; Yet, it is limited by our human condition. Thus, a ground of tension or metaxy is created between the divine order and man's order of thoughts and articulation of the experiences which gave rise to such thought and man's related questioning about reality.

In summation, we are told by Voegelin that:

"The man who asks questions, and the divine ground about which the questions are asked, will merge in the experience of questioning as a divine-human encounter and reemerge as the participants in the encounter that has the luminosity and structure of consciousness . . .

The ground is not a spatially distant thing but a divine presence that becomes manifest in the experience of unrest and the desire to know. The wondering and questioning is sensed as the beginning of a theophanic event that can become fully luminous to itself as it finds the proper response in the psyche of concrete human beings . . .

[This is a movement that is] . . . man's responsive pursuit of his questioning unrest to the divine source that has aroused it. This pursuit, however, if it is to be responsive indeed to the divine mover, requires the effort of articulating the experience through appropriate language symbols; and this effort leads to insights into the noetic structure of the psyche . . .

The movements of the divine human encounter are understood to form an intelligible unit of meaning, noetic in both substance and structure.

This is the unit of meaning to which I have succinctly referred to as man's tension toward the ground of existence."

Further, man's modes of tension can take the forms of hope, faith, love and trust. As is discussed below, the Constitution was a reflection of these modes of tension and was a divine human encounter in the same sense that the Greeks' Reason was. Justice is the mode of tension in the Noetic-Constitutional experience.

IV. The Divine and The Constitution

The initial appeal to our divine nature in the development of the Constitution of the United States finds itself in the following language from the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

The phrase "self evident" detectably takes on a sense of having truths and knowledge of the divine arise from within ourselves and yet also directly arises from that which allows us to be or that which created the ability for us to see these truths as self evident.

On its very face, the language of the Declaration of Independence images a tension between the material state of man's existence and something, albeit divine or otherwise, which allowed its Drafters to question an apparent absence of rights. This questioning derived from perceived a priori knowledge of a higher order --- something within the conscious be-ing of man and within the Original Drafters.

As mentioned by Voegelin, Greek man acknowledged his being created. So too, America's Founding Fathers recognized, out of a given state of disorder, that they were created by something higher than the order reflected by their own existence alone and the disorder in which such existence was then grounded.

In fact, the serious disorder of the age was reflected in America's claims about the conduct of Great Britain. In point, America claimed that Great Britain was:

A.) acting against the "public good";
B.) engaging in "invasions" of rights;
C.) obstructing "the administration of justice";
D.) "plundering" and "ravaging" maritime interests;
E.) "burning towns";
F.) "destroying lives";
G.) completing "works of death, desolation and tyranny"; and,
H.) being "deaf to the voice of justice.”

Assuming these things to be true, with a view toward our own times, it certainly appears that early America did not continue to remain in the apeironic depths of its then existent position in the continuum of human time and space. There were no more house burnings, trials by church and State or obvious acts of tyranny following the divine encounter of America. Nor was she limited by any belief that man cannot aspire to the divine.

Regardless of the lack of epistemological footing for a belief in `higher order' amidst the experiences of the time, America found within itself an inhering sense of higher order and came to articulate the experience of this strong inner sense through the documents that form the basis of American society.

This Nous of the eighteenth century was again manifest in the language of the Constitution itself. To wit, the following was stated and ratified on September 17, 1787:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution of the United States of America."

The Constitution would then become that "supreme law of the land.” The articulations contained therein would now become the `persuasive force' that would, in Voegelin's terms, illuminate America's existence for its citizens and the world as a whole. The Constitution was now an articulated unit of meaning having arisen from the metaxy of man's human experience and that which caused him to believe that there was a higher order outside of his epistemological footing of the time.

Justice would now take place at a new and ongoing politico-metaxy existing at the junction of the Constitution and the conduct of our daily human affairs.

On December 15, 1791, the United States further exhibited its tension toward the ground of its existence by ratifying the Bill of Rights. Among these fundamental rights, and first mentioned, was the right to free speech.

This particular right is an ultimate reflection of the experiential phenomena described by Voegelin in that it secured the right of persons to "articulate" their experiences as questioning human beings. Again, we must remember Voegelin's claim that our movements toward the divine ground can only be had through articulation of our experiences.

The First Amendment affirms man's questioning nature and so he becomes temporarily vindicated from the disorder and tyranny that began to stifle his questioning existence. America's pursuit of that which was claimed to be "God-given" would then be further vindicated by enactment of the remaining nine Amendments to the Constitution.

Assuredly it seems that the right to be secure in our persons and property, the right to trial by a group of our peers and the separation of Church and State bolster our ability to seek the ultimate ground of our existence on an individual level.

Nonetheless, Voegelin, in his discussion of the Greek experience of Reason, warns us that humans can find themselves distanced from the Nous and Reason when these things are viewed as something wholly abstract and distanced from the realm of the direct human experience of consciously facing off with reality.

We begin to develop certain psychopathology when we lose our openness and desire to pursue the divine within us. This psychopathology began to exhibit itself after the Greek Age and, I would submit, that modern America is exhibiting near terminal pathology relative to the Constitution as a reflection of higher order given by the divine within us. This is a pathology that is manifest by a disrespect for the value of human life, political party agendas outside a beneficial conservative/liberal politico-metaxy and the fears of a society governed by its sense of economics.

V. Psychopathology and Reason

As mentioned above, Voegelin's described Reason comes about through an interactive experience wherein man and his arche are mutual participants at the metaxy between them. Albeit that which causes us to "be what we are" initiates the process, we must be responsive to and maintain an ongoing openness toward our Creator and the ultimate ground. The mutuality of the experience makes for healthy existence. When we focus away from the ground, we counteract the process and so become philosophically ill. Again remembering, the divine allowed for man and is also a part of man.

That which created us is taken to be as much a part of our existence as the human experience of existence itself and thus plays a central role in our healthy consciousness. Undeniably, it seems that consciousness comes into being, that complete consciousness is the prerequisite to experience and that experience of reality is the medium by which we come to acknowledge our consciousness.

Moreover, it must be recognized that "reason" (with a small "r") is only a tool by which we can come to interpret the material world around us. It does nothing to bring our attention to that which allows or which created our "reason" in the first place. Focuses on "reason" are only focuses on human interpretation of the world and not on that which is in the world per se'.

Thus, it seems that a philosophical ascent to that which is the higher cause or source is much more in line with the ultimate goal of experiencing mankind as something more than mere matter clashing with other matter in the world of conscious reality. The philosophical ascent that is positive is the one that soars on the wings of the tension between that which caused us to be and that which we are. All the while, we must maintain an openness to that which compels us to be questioning beings. "Reason,” as an epochal historical event, is to be taken in an ontological sense, is a process happening in the whole of reality and, when recognized, assists man in rising above the disorder of his material conduct.

The mere belief that we contain within us and originate from something higher than ourselves is a medium to intellectual and spiritual progress. "Reason" (with a big "R") is a necessary part of our progressive ontology. The reason for my belief in this regard is grounded in the notion that: If `All There Is' relates to the matter that we now experience, we would have no basis for moving forward and there certainly would be no need for creativity or the other aspects of consciousness that seemingly separate man from beast. Matter, in a sense, becomes a constant: Our interactive and questioning nature, when acknowledged and activated, allows for variables and choices beyond what merely "is.”

It is the optimistic human belief that we can go beyond the contemporaneous experience of matter and our seemingly animalistic states, as they manifest themselves before us, and our manipulation of the matter beyond "what it is,” that creates ascent beyond the mere experience of matter in of itself and alone.

Our human be-ing becomes a state of interactive questioning, in the sense of "What might be, besides that which is before me?", Thus, we are moved forward in our be-ing. A passive view of reality would seemingly not allow us our individuality or perceived acknowledgment of God-given rights or the Divine or Reason. Questioning is, by definition, a process of going beyond what is experienced and, in that sense, is progressive and in the direction of going beyond matter. Further, questioning and noetic experience are events of the human consciousness and not mere ideas or constructs.

In order to maintain a healthy existence as humans capable of having meaning in our lives, we must acknowledge our questioning state of awareness as an inherent and integral part of our existence. When we operate in the metaxy of that which is beyond the here and now of material experience and our thoughts of "what might be beyond,” we are fulfilling the questioning nature of our existence.

When we solely focus on the mere "matter" of experience or the tools which are used to interpret the matter, we are at most existing at an experiential standstill and perhaps find ourselves digressing in our quest for that which makes us "what we are.” A focus on logic, mere sense data, language, passions and scientific method calls us only into the present and past. Questioning is a bridge to the future in that an answer, as meaning or value, is always a future event preceded only by questions. Although the material necessary to effectuate and answer is within the world, the questioning comes first and is a humanly conscious event beyond the realm of matter. Matter has no consciousness in my ontology.

Notwithstanding, the above thinking is also applicable to our sense of American Constitutionality.

VI. A Healthy View of the Constitution

As stated before, the creation of the Constitution was no mere recital of proposed ideas, but rather, was an articulation of the experience of thinking about what "God-given" rights there are or might be. As well, the Constitution gives us an articulation of the structure of government and the relationship of the People to their government.

When referring to Reason, Voegelin tells us:

"The life of Reason is not a treasure of information to be stored away, it is the struggle in the metaxy for the immortalizing order of the psyche in resistance to the mortalizing forces of the apeironic lust of being in Time." (P. 288).

By conceptual analogy, so it seems that the Constitution should not be taken as a mere treasure of historical information to be placed in the United States' archives. It becomes a living document that allows for an `In-Between a higher order and the doldrums and drama of our everyday conduct as American citizens'. Ostensibly, the idea of the Founding Fathers was that we would be presented with an inkling of the higher ground through the Constitution. When in societal disorder, we would have something to appeal to --- a sense of divinity to appeal to. The Constitution wasn't meant to be temporary and, quite properly I believe, we have not treated it as such.

The Constitution is a reflection of what America should be. Perhaps unfortunately, it is not necessarily a reflection of who we, as Americans, are today.

I believe that there is a metaxy of the Voegelinean type between the Constitution as a reflection of higher being and our day to day conduct as American citizens. In order to have a truly free society, there must be a mutual participation between us and the spirit of the Constitution.

The Constitution should be taken as a reflection in the belief that man is more than mere animal --- that he is reflective of the divine and the civility within us. Tyranny, barbarism and chaos are a reflection of the apeironic depths which lie at the spatio-temporal ground of matter.

Moreover, that which caused or allowed the Constitution to become an articulated reflection of the divine experience should be viewed as our initiative to acting constitutionally: Our duty and charge, as Americans, is to be responsive to the Constitution as it reflects our higher being. Faithful adherence and non-ignorance of the Constitution is the experience of the `Constitutional experience' already within us.

When officers of the law, officers of the court or even everyday citizens reject the divine order reflected in them, we become ill as Constitutionally created, inspired and driven citizens. However, we should not remain in offense of another's rejection of Constitutionality, but must seek the production of faith, hope, love and respect by placing ourselves back into a state of unrest at the metaxy of our daily conduct and the Constitution.

There are such things as justice, love and equity in the world by virtue of our interactive role in the whole of reality. We come recognize that there are such things because we engage in conduct and interaction that is substituted by words like "justice.” These things or modes of observable conduct are just as real as tables, chairs and other observable things and should be acknowledged and revered as such.

In conclusion, I believe that I should be thankful that " . . . when I had an inclination to philosophy, I did not fall into the hands of any sophist, and that I did not waste my time on the ordinary philosophers or in solving syllogisms, or investigating appearances in the heavens; for all of these things require the help of the gods and fortune."

It is in the experience of my be-ing and thinking about the cause of my be-ing that I find justice and, as a lawyer, the Constitution reaffirms my daily existence.