We should always consider our "Higher Values" when it comes to Military Action.		Freedom & Independence			Live 8
					One of the songs talks about Black Cowboys of the west.
	People should consider competing viewpoints when considering an issue, especially when considering social issues. I tend to be biased toward free market systems, national identity and a strong national defense as well as being proud of my ethnic heritage while valuing the respective diversity. I am in favor of immigrant rights, human dignity and democracy also.  I believe in a compassionate capitalism that rewards hard work, compensates fairly, and conforms to concepts of charity, human dignity and justice for all.  But there is a line in a song that says, "If you belong one party or another, you are subversive to unity".   I use this to challenge my views seek the truth in paradoxes and encourage others to do the same; be firm in your beliefs, have strong values, but never rest on your laurels.  Some ideals are based more upon acceptance of a current situation opposed to a visionary approach. This is where we need to find the bridges. I also find it interesting that some cultures identify themselves by citizenship and others by ethnic origin both can be important in personal identity. Well I liked the Pre-game “Declaration of Independence” segment before the  Superbowl. I also saw a paper headline “Patriot Uprising”, I would have just changed this to "Patriotic Uprising".  I read the declaration of independence as God's laws and natural laws above both Church (that which belongs to God) and State, to me, this only a statement of fact. Both institutions have a history of speaking to this reality. Morality should recognise both Divine and Natural law. If we declared that we use the following logic for our separation from England, we should be able to apply the same logic toward the separation of church and state.     "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." While the institutions of God (Church) and of man (Government), in a political context, I see value in treating them as equal when it come to leadership. While the Church has a stronger moral position as it relates to society. As society drifts further from  the moral position of the Church, the more dysfunctional the relationship becomes.  I would argue that we should look at them as married, maybe even a prearranged marriage. I would also look at Adam and Eve with regard to this separation. Eve was separated from Adam and later became united to him as his wife. Remember how I defined marriage, each retains their own personality. But I guess the paradox would be the same substance, I would argue that it is and it isn’t all at the same time. But society can be seen as the product of the relationship between Church and State and its interaction with man. This is where I see the concept of not coveting your spouse as being  important, where respect is most needed. In a way, we citizens are children of these institutions. They both serve   parental functions; both can offer ways to peace, however, the motherly role may offer us more insight with regard to this issue. I don’t think that my view of the people working together is counter to the two party system. It just says that we are better off if the “children” can work out their differences amongst themselves first and then take the plan back to their respective parties, or if you will, parents. It is an argument based in reason before politics; a way to focus the debate beforehand, to seek the consensus position to begin with, to promote efficiency. This would be an ideological, not a practical premise; I believe to be a premise of the founding fathers. Rather than unifying States, you unify peoples under a common goal. This relationship can be a synergy. This view helps to hold the parties accountable; it is the check and balance of the people with government. I haven’t really been thinking of such things all along; but I guess it all boils down to the assumptions God above all and separate institutions; the Church shouldn’t be the special interest group of Government; and Government shouldn’t be the special interest group of church; yet they are both under God. In a way, the citizens have become children of dysfunctional parents, whether you call them democrats and republicans, or church and government. I would argue that it is the atheist that we have to bring along in a respectful way, the way the God has done with them also; in a way that respects free will. I see our country being based upon the freedom to practice the religion of choice; not as freedom from religion, although such a position is also respected. Thomas Paine argues a paradox, separation brings unity.  I think this may be true only in a paradoxical way, it can also breed dysfunction. Paine states that, “Society is produced by our wants, and government by wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices.” I have always liked the quote from Patrick Henry in a speech given on March 23, 1775. "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" I've heard it expressed, that freedom is to do what you aught to do. This makes sense to me, in the same context that your rights end where another's begin. If you are free to do anything you want you are free to put sand in your gas tank, now you aren't free to drive away. I would argue that Paine should haven't used the word wants, wants does not acknowledge the concept of restraint; a restraint that honors the rights of others. Sins are also portrayed as the chains of slavery and sin is death. I guess you could argue that Patrick Henry was also giving us a theology lesson.   I see that the separation of Church and State would argue that politics should not be a special interest of the Church and the Church should not be a special interest of the Government. Addressing social issues are what is important and the more we can do this person to person the better it will be for everyone; our goal should be to cure the disease and not just treat the symptoms.  I have noticed that both institutions have a shared  history  when it comes to the types of scandals that have plagued them both; however, I am more interested in restoration of a moral order than pointing fingers at one another. There are many issues that require justice; but such justice much also be used as an opportunity to promote a moral order that affirms all with dignity and respect. 2004 Vote