What Is Christian Humanism?

Jens Zimmermann locates Bonhoeffer within the Christian humanist tradition extending back to patristic theology. He begins by explaining Bonhoeffer's own use of the term humanism (and Christian humanism), and considering how his criticism of liberal Protestant theology prevents him from articulating his own theology rhetorically as a Christian humanism. He then provides an in-depth portrayal of Bonhoeffer's theological anthropology and establishes that Bonhoeffer's Christology and attendant anthropology closely resemble patristic teaching. The volume also considers Bonhoeffer's mature anthropology, focusing in particular on the Christian self. It introduces the hermeneutic quality of Bonhoeffer's theology as a further important feature of his Christian humanism. In contrast to secular and religious fundamentalisms, Bonhoeffer offers a hermeneutic understanding of truth as participation in the Christ event that makes interpretation central to human knowing. Having established the hermeneutical structure of his theology, and his personalist configuration of reality, Zimmermann outlines Bonhoeffer's ethics as 'Christformation'. Building on the hermeneutic theology and participatory ethics of the previous chapters, he then shows how a major part of Bonhoeffer's life and theology, namely his dedication to the Bible as God's word, is also consistent with his Christian humanism.

Being and Becoming

by R.E. Slater

      Being Worldly

      Being Secular

      Being Humanist

Labels meant to make

people living them ugly

by those who are ugly

Words meant to divide and kill

create strife and separate

Meanings misused and misappropriated

twisted into definitions of exclusion

      We become our words

      We become what we say and do

      We become our ugly intent

Being is a beautiful thing

Becoming is part of living and maturing

Being is me

Becoming is too

Being meets Becoming 

Making both whole

      Becoming Worldly

      Becoming Secular

      Becoming Humanist

These are expressions made whole when

a God of Love is placed in front of them

      Who meets me with who I should become

      Who meets world with what it can become

      Who meets us to tell us Love, and be Loved

There can be no apology
for being who we are

There can be no pulpit
crying separation from the world

There can be no creed of
oneness with God if not also His people

      Godly worldliness provides experience where there is none

      Godly secularity sees beauty wherever it looks

      Godly humanism sees the possibilities of mankind at its best

Being and Becoming

Flowing and Movement

Balance and Harmony

      Let it be and become

      Undivided and Whole

      In this Life now to Life everlasting



R.E. Slater

June 7, 2020

@copyright R.E. Slater Publications

all rights reserved

Christian humanism is not a new doctrine but an old observance from time immemorial found in the ancients, the major creeds of religions, the teachings of Jesus, and even today in BLM. It an attitude, a behavior, a significant and important form of communication with one another. It is built around the word Love. Too many think of humanism as replacing God. But what if it stood with God in exemplifying divine love and forgiveness? This is what is meant by "Christian" humanism. If religions like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism were to stay to their roots of grace and peace in God I would imagine our world would be a far better place. - re slater

Christian humanism sees people for who they are, serving where it can to help and aid. Jesus didn't say to hate the world but not to be corrupted by the world, including the corruption which comes with Christian secularity. A corruption which is silent in the face of racism and supremacy. If I was to chose between the world and the church I'd rather go it alone in God's creation than fellowship with false attitudes and doctrines. The church of God welcomes and embraces all. It does not seek to brainwash, strong-arm, place guilt upon, or shout down all who differ from its inhumane silence seeking power over God's love and weakness. - re slater

Wikipedia - "Christian humanism regards humanist principles like universal human dignity, individual freedom and the importance of happiness as essential and principal components of the teachings of Jesus. It emerged during the Renaissance with strong roots in the patristic period."

* * * * * * *

A look at psychology of the person and sociology of society

through the eyes of Process Psychology and Sociology

Twinkl - link

Being and Becoming trailer 2014

Being and Becoming explores the concept and ultimately the choice of not schooling children, but of trusting and letting them learn freely what they are truly passionate about. The filmmaker's journey of discovery takes us through the US, Germany (where it's illegal not to go to school), France and the UK. This film is a quest for truth about the innate desire to learn. Trailer Music: Variation on Schumann Kinderszenen by Jay Gottlieb.

* * * * * *

         

Who is Carl Rodgers?

Wikipedia - Carl Ransom Rogers (January 8, 1902 – February 4, 1987) was an American  psychologist and among the founders of the humanistic approach (or client-centered approach) to psychology. Rogers is widely considered to be one of the founding fathers of psychotherapy research and was honored for his pioneering research with the Award for Distinguished Scientific Contributions by the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1956.

The person-centered approach, his own unique approach to understanding personality and human relationships, found wide application in various domains such as psychotherapy and counseling (client-centered therapy), education (student-centered learning), organizations, and other group settings. For his professional work he was bestowed the Award for Distinguished Professional Contributions to Psychology by the APA in 1972. In a study by Steven J. Haggbloom and colleagues using six criteria such as citations and recognition, Rogers was found to be the sixth most eminent psychologist of the 20th century and second, among clinicians, only to Sigmund Freud.

Biography

Rogers was born on January 8, 1902, in Oak Park, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago. His father, Walter A. Rogers, was a civil engineer, a Congregationalist by denomination. His mother, Julia M. Cushing,[3][4] was a homemaker and devout Baptist. Carl was the fourth of their six children.[5]

Rogers was intelligent and could read well before kindergarten. Following an education in a strict religious and ethical environment as an altar boy at the vicarage of Jimpley, he became a rather isolated, independent and disciplined person, and acquired a knowledge and an appreciation for the scientific method in a practical world. His first career choice was agriculture, at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, where he was a part of the fraternity of Alpha Kappa Lambda, followed by history and then religion. At age 20, following his 1922 trip to Peking, China, for an international Christian conference, he started to doubt his religious convictions. To help him clarify his career choice, he attended a seminar entitled Why am I entering the Ministry?, after which he decided to change his career. In 1924, he graduated from University of Wisconsin and enrolled at Union Theological Seminary (New York City). Sometime afterwards he became an atheist.[6] Although referred to as an atheist early in his career, Rogers eventually came to be described as agnostic. However, in his later years it is reported he spoke about spirituality. Thorne, who knew Rogers and worked with him on a number of occasions during his final ten years, writes that, “in his later years his openness to experience compelled him to acknowledge the existence of a dimension to which he attached such adjectives as mystical, spiritual, and transcendental.”[7] Rogers concluded that there is a realm "beyond" scientific psychology, a realm which he came to prize as "the indescribable, the spiritual."[8]

After two years he left the seminary to attend Teachers College, Columbia University, obtaining an M.A. in 1928 and a Ph.D. in 1931. While completing his doctoral work, he engaged in child study. In 1930, Rogers served as director of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in Rochester, New York. From 1935 to 1940 he lectured at the University of Rochester and wrote The Clinical Treatment of the Problem Child (1939), based on his experience in working with troubled children. He was strongly influenced in constructing his client-centered approach by the post-Freudian psychotherapeutic practice of Otto Rank,[9] especially as embodied in the work of Rank's disciple, noted clinician and social work educator Jessie Taft.[10][11] In 1940 Rogers became professor of clinical psychology at Ohio State University, where he wrote his second book, Counseling and Psychotherapy (1942). In it, Rogers suggested that the client, by establishing a relationship with an understanding, accepting therapist, can resolve difficulties and gain the insight necessary to restructure their life.

In 1945, he was invited to set up a counselling center at the University of Chicago. In 1947 he was elected President of the American Psychological Association.[12] While a professor of psychology at the University of Chicago (1945–57), Rogers helped to establish a counselling center connected with the university and there conducted studies to determine the effectiveness of his methods. His findings and theories appeared in Client-Centered Therapy (1951) and Psychotherapy and Personality Change (1954). One of his graduate students at the University of Chicago, Thomas Gordon, established the Parent Effectiveness Training (P.E.T.) movement. Another student, Eugene T. Gendlin, who was getting his Ph.D. in philosophy, developed the practice of Focusing based on Rogerian listening. In 1956, Rogers became the first President of the American Academy of Psychotherapists.[13] He taught psychology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison (1957–63), during which time he wrote one of his best-known books, On Becoming Person (1961). A student of his there, Marshall Rosenberg, would go on to develop Nonviolent Communication.[14] Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow (1908–70) pioneered a movement called humanistic psychology which reached its peak in the 1960s. In 1961, he was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.[15] Carl Rogers was also one of the people who questioned the rise of McCarthyism in the 1950s. Through articles, he criticized society for its backward-looking affinities.[16]

Rogers continued teaching at University of Wisconsin until 1963, when he became a resident at the new Western Behavioral Sciences Institute (WBSI) in La Jolla, California. Rogers left the WBSI to help found the Center for Studies of the Person in 1968. His later books include Carl Rogers on Personal Power (1977) and Freedom to Learn for the 80's (1983). He remained a resident of La Jolla for the rest of his life, doing therapy, giving speeches and writing.

Rogers's last years were devoted to applying his theories in situations of political oppression and national social conflict, traveling worldwide to do so. In Belfast, Northern Ireland, he brought together influential Protestants and Catholics; in South Africa, blacks and whites; in Brazil people emerging from dictatorship to democracy; in the United States, consumers and providers in the health field. His last trip, at age 85, was to the Soviet Union, where he lectured and facilitated intensive experiential workshops fostering communication and creativity. He was astonished at the numbers of Russians who knew of his work.

Between 1974 and 1984, Rogers, together with his daughter Natalie Rogers, and psychologists Maria Bowen, Maureen O'Hara, and John K. Wood, convened a series of residential programs in the US, Europe, Brazil and Japan, the Person-Centered Approach Workshops, which focused on cross-cultural communications, personal growth, self-empowerment, and learning for social change.

In 1987, Rogers suffered a fall that resulted in a fractured pelvis: he had life alert and was able to contact paramedics. He had a successful operation, but his pancreas failed the next night and he died a few days later after a heart attack.[17]

Theory

Rogers' theory of the self is considered to be humanistic, existential, and phenomenological.[18] His theory is based directly on the "phenomenal field" personality theory of Combs and Snygg (1949).[19] Rogers' elaboration of his own theory is extensive. He wrote 16 books and many more journal articles describing it. Prochaska and Norcross (2003) states Rogers "consistently stood for an empirical evaluation of psychotherapy. He and his followers have demonstrated a humanistic approach to conducting therapy and a scientific approach to evaluating therapy need not be incompatible."

Nineteen propositions

His theory (as of 1951) was based on 19 propositions:[20]

1. All individuals (organisms) exist in a continually changing world of experience (phenomenal field) of which they are the center.
2. The organism reacts to the field as it is experienced and perceived. This perceptual field is "reality" for the individual.
3. The organism reacts as an organized whole to this phenomenal field.
4. A portion of the total perceptual field gradually becomes differentiated as the self.
5. As a result of interaction with the environment, and particularly as a result of evaluative interaction with others, the structure of the self is formed—an organized, fluid but consistent conceptual pattern of perceptions of characteristics and relationships of the "I" or the "me", together with values attached to these concepts.
6. The organism has one basic tendency and striving—to actualize, maintain and enhance the experiencing organism.
7. The best vantage point for understanding behavior is from the internal frame of reference of the individual.
8. Behavior is basically the goal-directed attempt of the organism to satisfy its needs as experienced, in the field as perceived.
9. Emotion accompanies, and in general facilitates, such goal directed behavior, the kind of emotion being related to the perceived significance of the behavior for the maintenance and enhancement of the organism.
10. The values attached to experiences, and the values that are a part of the self-structure, in some instances, are values experienced directly by the organism, and in some instances are values introjected or taken over from others, but perceived in distorted fashion, as if they had been experienced directly.
11. As experiences occur in the life of the individual, they are either, a) symbolized, perceived and organized into some relation to the self, b) ignored because there is no perceived relationship to the self structure, c) denied symbolization or given distorted symbolization because the experience is inconsistent with the structure of the self.
12. Most of the ways of behaving that are adopted by the organism are those that are consistent with the concept of self.
13. In some instances, behavior may be brought about by organic experiences and needs which have not been symbolized. Such behavior may be inconsistent with the structure of the self but in such instances the behavior is not "owned" by the individual.
14. Psychological adjustment exists when the concept of the self is such that all the sensory and visceral experiences of the organism are, or may be, assimilated on a symbolic level into a consistent relationship with the concept of self.
15. Psychological maladjustment exists when the organism denies awareness of significant sensory and visceral experiences, which consequently are not symbolized and organized into the gestalt of the self structure. When this situation exists, there is a basic or potential psychological tension.
16. Any experience which is inconsistent with the organization of the structure of the self may be perceived as a threat, and the more of these perceptions there are, the more rigidly the self structure is organized to maintain itself.
17. Under certain conditions, involving primarily complete absence of threat to the self structure, experiences which are inconsistent with it may be perceived and examined, and the structure of self revised to assimilate and include such experiences.
18. When the individual perceives and accepts into one consistent and integrated system all his sensory and visceral experiences, then he is necessarily more understanding of others and is more accepting of others as separate individuals.
19. As the individual perceives and accepts into his self structure more of his organic experiences, he finds that he is replacing his present value system—based extensively on introjections which have been distortedly symbolized—with a continuing organismic valuing process.
20. In relation to No. 17, Rogers is known for practicing "unconditional positive regard", which is defined as accepting a person "without negative judgment of .... [a person's] basic worth".[21]

Development of the personality

With regard to development, Rogers described principles rather than stages. The main issue is the development of a self-concept and the progress from an undifferentiated self to being fully differentiated.

Self Concept is the organized consistent conceptual gestalt composed of perceptions of the characteristics of 'I' or 'me' and the perceptions of the relationships of the 'I' or 'me' to others and to various aspects of life, together with the values attached to these perceptions. It is a gestalt which is available to awareness though not necessarily in awareness. It is a fluid and changing gestalt, a process, but at any given moment it is a specific entity. (Rogers, 1959)[22]

In the development of the self-concept, he saw conditional and unconditional positive regard as key. Those raised in an environment of unconditional positive regard have the opportunity to fully actualize themselves. Those raised in an environment of conditional positive regard feel worthy only if they match conditions (what Rogers describes as conditions of worth) that have been laid down for them by others.

Fully functioning person

Optimal development, as referred to in proposition 14, results in a certain process rather than static state. He describes this as the good life, where the organism continually aims to fulfill its full potential. He listed the characteristics of a fully functioning person (Rogers 1961):[23]

1. A growing openness to experience – they move away from defensiveness and have no need for subception (a perceptual defense that involves unconsciously applying strategies to prevent a troubling stimulus from entering consciousness).
2. An increasingly existential lifestyle – living each moment fully – not distorting the moment to fit personality or self-concept but allowing personality and self-concept to emanate from the experience. This results in excitement, daring, adaptability, tolerance, spontaneity, and a lack of rigidity and suggests a foundation of trust. "To open one's spirit to what is going on now, and discover in that present process whatever structure it appears to have" (Rogers 1961)[23]
3. Increasing organismic trust – they trust their own judgment and their ability to choose behavior that is appropriate for each moment. They do not rely on existing codes and social norms but trust that as they are open to experiences they will be able to trust their own sense of right and wrong.
4. Freedom of choice – not being shackled by the restrictions that influence an incongruent individual, they are able to make a wider range of choices more fluently. They believe that they play a role in determining their own behavior and so feel responsible for their own behavior.
5. Creativity – it follows that they will feel more free to be creative. They will also be more creative in the way they adapt to their own circumstances without feeling a need to conform.
6. Reliability and constructiveness – they can be trusted to act constructively. An individual who is open to all their needs will be able to maintain a balance between them. Even aggressive needs will be matched and balanced by intrinsic goodness in congruent individuals.
7. A rich full life – he describes the life of the fully functioning individual as rich, full and exciting and suggests that they experience joy and pain, love and heartbreak, fear and courage more intensely. Rogers' description of the good life:

• This process of the good life is not, I am convinced, a life for the faint-hearted. It involves the stretching and growing of becoming more and more of one's potentialities. It involves the courage to be. It means launching oneself fully into the stream of life. (Rogers 1961)[23]

Incongruence

Rogers identified the "real self" as the aspect of one's being that is founded in the actualizing tendency, follows organismic valuing, needs and receives positive regard and self-regard. It is the "you" that, if all goes well, you will become. On the other hand, to the extent that our society is out of sync with the actualizing tendency, and we are forced to live with conditions of worth that are out of step with organismic valuing, and receive only conditional positive regard and self-regard, we develop instead an "ideal self". By ideal, Rogers is suggesting something not real, something that is always out of our reach, the standard we cannot meet. This gap between the real self and the ideal self, the "I am" and the "I should" is called incongruity.

Psychopathology

Rogers described the concepts of congruence and incongruence as important ideas in his theory. In proposition #6, he refers to the actualizing tendency. At the same time, he recognized the need for positive regard. In a fully congruent person, realizing their potential is not at the expense of experiencing positive regard. They are able to lead lives that are authentic and genuine. Incongruent individuals, in their pursuit of positive regard, lead lives that include falseness and do not realize their potential. Conditions put on them by those around them make it necessary for them to forgo their genuine, authentic lives to meet with the approval of others. They live lives that are not true to themselves, to who they are on the inside out.

Rogers suggested that the incongruent individual, who is always on the defensive and cannot be open to all experiences, is not functioning ideally and may even be malfunctioning. They work hard at maintaining and protecting their self-concept. Because their lives are not authentic this is a difficult task and they are under constant threat. They deploy defense mechanisms to achieve this. He describes two mechanisms: distortion and denial. Distortion occurs when the individual perceives a threat to their self-concept. They distort the perception until it fits their self-concept.

This defensive behavior reduces the consciousness of the threat but not the threat itself. And so, as the threats mount, the work of protecting the self-concept becomes more difficult and the individual becomes more defensive and rigid in their self structure. If the incongruence is immoderate this process may lead the individual to a state that would typically be described as neurotic. Their functioning becomes precarious and psychologically vulnerable. If the situation worsens it is possible that the defenses cease to function altogether and the individual becomes aware of the incongruence of their situation. Their personality becomes disorganised and bizarre; irrational behavior, associated with earlier denied aspects of self, may erupt uncontrollably.

Applications

Person-centered therapy

Rogers originally developed his theory to be the foundation for a system of therapy. He initially called this "non-directive therapy" but later replaced the term "non-directive" with the term "client-centered" and then later used the term "person-centered". Even before the publication of Client-Centered Therapy in 1951, Rogers believed that the principles he was describing could be applied in a variety of contexts and not just in the therapy situation. As a result, he started to use the term person-centered approach later in his life to describe his overall theory. Person-centered therapy is the application of the person-centered approach to the therapy situation. Other applications include a theory of personality, interpersonal relations, education, nursing, cross-cultural relations and other "helping" professions and situations. In 1946 Rogers co-authored "Counseling with Returned Servicemen" with John L. Wallen (the creator of the behavioral model known as The Interpersonal Gap),[24] documenting the application of person-centered approach to counseling military personnel returning from the second world war.

The first empirical evidence of the effectiveness of the client-centered approach was published in 1941 at the Ohio State University by Elias Porter, using the recordings of therapeutic sessions between Carl Rogers and his clients.[25] Porter used Rogers' transcripts to devise a system to measure the degree of directiveness or non-directiveness a counselor employed.[26] The attitude and orientation of the counselor were demonstrated to be instrumental in the decisions made by the client.[27][28]

Learner-centered teaching

The application to education has a large robust research tradition similar to that of therapy with studies having begun in the late 1930s and continuing today (Cornelius-White, 2007). Rogers described the approach to education in Client-Centered Therapy and wrote Freedom to Learn devoted exclusively to the subject in 1969. Freedom to Learn was revised two times. The new Learner-Centered Model is similar in many regards to this classical person-centered approach to education. Rogers and Harold Lyon began a book prior to Rogers death, entitled On Becoming an Effective Teacher—Person-centered Teaching, Psychology, Philosophy, and Dialogues with Carl R. Rogers and Harold Lyon, which was completed by Lyon and Reinhard Tausch and published in 2013 containing Rogers last unpublished writings on person-centered teaching.[29] Rogers had the following five hypotheses regarding learner-centered education:

1. "A person cannot teach another person directly; a person can only facilitate another's learning" (Rogers, 1951). This is a result of his personality theory, which states that everyone exists in a constantly changing world of experience in which he or she is the center. Each person reacts and responds based on perception and experience. The belief is that what the student does is more important than what the teacher does. The focus is on the student (Rogers, 1951). Therefore, the background and experiences of the learner are essential to how and what is learned. Each student will process what he or she learns differently depending on what he or she brings to the classroom.
2. "A person learns significantly only those things that are perceived as being involved in the maintenance of or enhancement of the structure of self" (Rogers, 1951). Therefore, relevancy to the student is essential for learning. The students' experiences become the core of the course.
3. "Experience which, if assimilated, would involve a change in the organization of self, tends to be resisted through denial or distortion of symbolism" (Rogers, 1951). If the content or presentation of a course is inconsistent with preconceived information, the student will learn if he or she is open to varying concepts. Being open to consider concepts that vary from one's own is vital to learning. Therefore, gently encouraging open-mindedness is helpful in engaging the student in learning. Also, it is important, for this reason, that new information be relevant and related to existing experience.
4. "The structure and organization of self appears to become more rigid under threats and to relax its boundaries when completely free from threat" (Rogers, 1951). If students believe that concepts are being forced upon them, they might become uncomfortable and fearful. A barrier is created by a tone of threat in the classroom. Therefore, an open, friendly environment in which trust is developed is essential in the classroom. Fear of retribution for not agreeing with a concept should be eliminated. A classroom tone of support helps to alleviate fears and encourages students to have the courage to explore concepts and beliefs that vary from those they bring to the classroom. Also, new information might threaten the student's concept of him- or herself; therefore, the less vulnerable the student feels, the more likely he or she will be able to open up to the learning process.
5. "The educational situation which most effectively promotes significant learning is one in which (a) threat to the self of the learner is reduced to a minimum and (b) differentiated perception of the field is facilitated" (Rogers, 1951). The instructor should be open to learning from the students and also working to connect the students to the subject matter. Frequent interaction with the students will help achieve this goal. The instructor's acceptance of being a mentor who guides rather than the expert who tells is instrumental to student-centered, nonthreatening, and unforced learning.

Rogerian rhetorical approach

In 1970, Richard Young, Alton L. Becker, and Kenneth Pike published Rhetoric: Discovery and Change, a widely influential college writing textbook that used a Rogerian approach to communication to revise the traditional Aristotelian framework for rhetoric. The Rogerian method of argument involves each side restating the other's position to the satisfaction of the other. In a paper, it can be expressed by carefully acknowledging and understanding the opposition, rather than dismissing them.[30]

Cross-cultural relations

The application to cross-cultural relations has involved workshops in highly stressful situations and global locations including conflicts and challenges in South Africa, Central America, and Ireland.[31] Along with Alberto Zucconi and Charles Devonshire, he co-founded the Istituto dell'Approccio Centrato sulla Persona (Person-Centered Approach Institute) in Rome, Italy.

His international work for peace culminated in the Rust Peace Workshop which took place in November 1985 in Rust, Austria. Leaders from 17 nations convened to discuss the topic "The Central America Challenge". The meeting was notable for several reasons: it brought national figures together as people (not as their positions), it was a private event, and was an overwhelming positive experience where members heard one another and established real personal ties, as opposed to stiffly formal and regulated diplomatic meetings.[32]

Person-centered, dialogic politics

Some scholars believe there is a politics implicit in Rogers's approach to psychotherapy.[33][34] Toward the end of his life, Rogers came to that view himself.[35] The central tenet of a Rogerian, person-centered politics is that public life does not have to consist of an endless series of winner-take-all battles among sworn opponents; rather, it can and should consist of an ongoing dialogue among all parties. Such dialogue would be characterized by respect among the parties, authentic speaking by each party, and – ultimately – empathic understanding among all parties. Out of such understanding, mutually acceptable solutions would (or at least could) flow.[33][36]

During his last decade, Rogers facilitated or participated in a wide variety of dialogic activities among politicians, activists, and other social leaders, often outside the U.S.[36] In addition, he lent his support to several non-traditional U.S. political initiatives, including the "12-Hour Political Party" of the Association for Humanistic Psychology[37] and the founding of a "transformational" political organization, the New World Alliance.[38] By the 21st century, interest in dialogic approaches to political engagement and change had become widespread, especially among academics and activists.[39] Theorists of a specifically Rogerian, person-centered approach to politics as dialogue have made substantial contributions to that project.[34][40]

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)

*This section includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this section by introducing more precise citations. (October 2017)

Carl Rogers served on the board of the Human Ecology Fund from the late 50s into the 60s, which was a CIA-funded organization that provided grants to researchers looking into personality. In addition, he and other people in the field of personality and psychotherapy were given a lot of information about Khrushchev. "We were asked to figure out what we thought of him and what would be the best way of dealing with him. And that seemed to be an entirely principled and legitimate aspect. I don't think we contributed very much, but, anyway, we tried."[41]

Selected works by Carl Roger

1. Rogers, Carl, and Carmichael, Leonard (1939). The Clinical Treatment of the Problem Child. Boston; New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
2. Rogers, Carl. (1942). Counseling and Psychotherapy: Newer Concepts in Practice. Boston; New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
3. Rogers, Carl. (1951). Client-Centered Therapy: Its Current Practice, Implications and Theory. London: Constable. ISBN 1-84119-840-4.
4. Rogers, C.R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 21: 95-103.
5. Rogers, Carl. (1959). A Theory of Therapy, Personality and Interpersonal Relationships as Developed in the Client-centered Framework. In (ed.) S. Koch, Psychology: A Study of a Science. Vol. 3: Formulations of the Person and the Social Context. New York: McGraw Hill.
6. Rogers, Carl. (1961). On Becoming a Person: A Therapist's View of Psychotherapy. London: Constable. ISBN 1-84529-057-7.Excerpts
7. Rogers, Carl. (1969). Freedom to Learn: A View of What Education Might Become. (1st ed.) Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merill. Excerpts
8. Rogers, Carl. (1970). On Encounter Groups. New York: Harrow Books, Harper and Row, ISBN 0-06-087045-1
9. Rogers, Carl. (1977). On Personal Power: Inner Strength and Its Revolutionary Impact.
10. Rogers, Carl. (nd, @1978). A personal message from Carl Rogers. In: N. J. Raskin. (2004). Contributions to Client-Centered Therapy and the Person-Centered Approach. (pp. v-vi). Herefordshire, United Kingdom: PCCS Books, Ross-on-the-Wye. ISBN 1-898059-57-8
11. Rogers, Carl. (1980). A Way of Being. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
12. Rogers, Carl. and Stevens, B. (1967). Person to Person: The Problem of Being Human. Lafayette, CA: Real People Press.
13. Rogers, Carl, Lyon, Harold C., & Tausch, Reinhard (2013) On Becoming an Effective Teacher—Person-centered Teaching, Psychology, Philosophy, and Dialogues with Carl R. Rogers and Harold Lyon. London: Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-81698-4
14. Rogers, C.R., Raskin, N.J., et al. (1949). A coordinated research in psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 13, 149-200. Cited in: N.J. Raskin, The first 50 years and the next 10. Person-Centered Review, 5(4), November 1990, 364-372.

Thomas Jay Oord - Barbie and Our Purpose

 

Barbie Main Trailer

by Warner Bros. Pictures

May 25, 2023

Billie Eilish - What Was I Made For? 

(Official Music Video)

by Billie Eilish

* * * * * * * *

Barbie and Our Purpose

article link

by Thomas Jay Oord

February 25th, 2024

Tripp Fuller and I have written a book called God After Deconstruction. It will be available in April 2024.

Among the issues we discuss is how to think about purpose after the traditional God is deconstructed. Here’s an excerpt from the book, which builds on the Barbie movie.

What Was I Made For?

In the blockbuster movie Barbie, we find the world-renown doll and diverse friends in roles their maker has chosen. The toys dance and sing, party, and live according to the determinations of their manufacturer, Mattel.

In a moment of questioning, however, Barbie ponders life beyond what has been decided for her. She wonders what the real world might be like. So she visits Weird Barbie and is presented with a choice: go “back to the way your life was” or “know the truth about the universe.”

At first, Barbie chooses what’s safe and familiar: Barbie Land. “I’m not Adventure Barbie,” she explains, “I’m Stereotypical Barbie.”

With a little coaxing, she opts to learn the truth. So she departs Barbie Land for an adventure. To her delight, Barbie finds the real world thrilling; her newfound autonomy gives joy. But this liberation raises questions about who she is, the customs of her past, and the desires of her friends, especially Ken. Barbie realizes that the restrictions of the status quo, especially patriarchy, cause harm.

Near the end of the movie, Barbie talks with corporate leaders at Mattel. In a conversation with a CEO, Barbie admits to being confused: “I’m not really sure where I belong anymore.” Billie Eilish expresses this angst beautifully in the Grammy Award-winning song written for the movie: “What Was I Made For?”

Barbie then interacts with Ruth, the woman who originally imagined her as a doll for her daughter. “I want to be part of the people that make meaning, not the thing that’s made,” Barbie says, “I want to be the one imagining, not the idea itself.”

“You don’t need my permission,” Ruth replies.

“But you’re The Creator,” says Barbie. “You control me.”

“Ha!” says Ruth. “I can’t control you any more than I could control my own daughter!”

God’s Role in Purpose and Meaning

After the God of traditional theology is deconstructed, questions arise: What is our purpose? Does life have meaning? What’s the point?

The God of traditional theology is like the patriarchy at Mattel… but even more controlling. This deity predetermines the actions of all, so we’re dolls playing predestined roles. Rather than agents with autonomy, we dance and sing, enjoy and suffer, bleed and die according to our Maker’s will.

When God is imagined as one who foreordains and/or foreknows, questions about purpose and meaning have simple answers. Life’s purpose is whatever God determines, and it means whatever God decides. When God is in control, it all makes sense…

at least at first.

Like Barbie, however, we who deconstruct begin to imagine life outside systems that confine us. We realize we make free actual choices, and our lives matter. So we embark on an adventure to discover a world beyond what’s expected. We grow.

Once we — like Barbie — recognize our autonomy, it becomes difficult to imagine a controlling God. When we suffer needlessly or encounter evil in the world, we begin to doubt God has a pre-selected blueprint. Unjust systems make us wonder about an omnipotent God’s purposes; pointless pain causes us to question whether life has ultimate meaning. We encounter the restrictions of controlling systems and the restricting gods required to manage them.

The Barbie movie answers these questions by saying the purpose of life is in the living of it. The movie’s last moments show Barbie imagining experiences of various types. The message seems to be that we find meaning in whatever happens. That has a measure of truth, but isn’t there something more?

How might we think about God, purpose, and meaning after traditional theology?

Chatbot & I discuss why "Common Sense Is Not So Common"

Chatbot & I discuss why

"Common Sense Is Not So Common"

by R.E. Slater and ChatGPT 3.5

November 22, 2023

Good Morning. Title of File: "Common sense is not so common" Please explain why or why not this may be true or false.

ChatGPT

Good morning! The statement "Common sense is not so common" is often attributed to the French philosopher Voltaire. The idea behind this phrase is that what seems like common sense to one person may not be so obvious or common to another. Here are a few reasons why this statement may be considered true or false:

True:

• Subjectivity: Common sense is often based on personal experiences, cultural background, and individual perspectives. What seems like common sense in one situation may not be perceived the same way by someone with different experiences or cultural norms.

• Diverse Perspectives: People come from different backgrounds and have varied levels of exposure to different situations. What one person may consider common sense due to their experiences, someone else might find unfamiliar or counterintuitive.

• Cognitive Biases: Cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias or hindsight bias, can influence how people perceive and apply common sense. These biases can lead individuals to interpret situations in ways that align with their existing beliefs or hindsight, rather than objectively assessing the situation.

False:

• Shared Values: In many societies, there are shared values and norms that are considered common sense. For example, concepts like honesty, integrity, and respect for others may be widely accepted as common sense in various cultures.

• Universal Principles: Some principles may be considered universally common sense, such as the idea of cause and effect or the need for balance in various aspects of life. These principles are often rooted in fundamental aspects of human cognition and societal organization.

• Educational Factors: Education and upbringing play a significant role in shaping an individual's understanding of common sense. In communities where education emphasizes critical thinking and problem-solving skills, there may be a higher level of agreement on what constitutes common sense.

In conclusion, the statement "Common sense is not so common" captures the idea that perspectives on what is considered common sense can vary widely among individuals. The extent to which it is true or false depends on factors such as cultural background, personal experiences, education, and shared values within a particular community or society.

Very good. It seems that through personal relationship contact and discussion and education commonality and difference may be surmounted. Are there other ways to surmount difference of ideation, expectation, and purpose?

ChatGPT

Certainly, there are various ways to surmount differences in ideation, expectations, and purpose. Here are some strategies:

Effective Communication:

• Active Listening: Actively listen to others, seeking to understand their perspective without immediately judging or formulating a response. This helps build empathy and creates a foundation for mutual understanding.

• Clarity in Expression: Clearly articulate your own ideas, expectations, and purposes. Use language that is accessible and open to interpretation to avoid misunderstandings.

Cultural Competence:

• Cultural Awareness: Be aware of cultural differences and nuances, as these can significantly impact how ideas and expectations are perceived. Foster a mindset of cultural competence to navigate diverse perspectives more effectively.

• Empathy:Put Yourself in Others' Shoes: Try to understand the world from the perspective of others. Empathy enables individuals to appreciate different viewpoints and acknowledge the validity of diverse experiences.

Conflict Resolution:

• Constructive Conflict Management: When conflicts arise, focus on finding solutions rather than placing blame. Encourage open dialogue to address differences and work toward mutually beneficial outcomes.

Collaboration:

• Teamwork and Collaboration: Emphasize collaboration and teamwork. Bringing people with diverse perspectives together can lead to creative solutions and foster an environment where differences are seen as assets rather than obstacles.

Education and Awareness:

• Continuous Learning: Foster a culture of continuous learning, where individuals are encouraged to expand their understanding of different ideas and perspectives. This can be achieved through training programs, workshops, and exposure to diverse experiences.

Shared Goals and Values:

• Identify Common Ground: Find common goals and values that can serve as a foundation for collaboration. Establishing shared objectives can help bridge gaps in ideation and purpose.

Flexibility and Adaptability:

• Open-Mindedness: Be open to new ideas and be willing to adapt. Recognize that the world is dynamic, and solutions that worked in the past may need adjustments to meet current challenges.

Leadership:

• Inclusive Leadership: Leaders play a crucial role in setting the tone for inclusivity. Leaders who promote diversity and inclusion contribute to an environment where differences are respected and leveraged for collective success.

Technology and Tools:

• Collaborative Technologies: Leverage technology and collaborative tools to facilitate communication and coordination, especially in situations where individuals may be geographically dispersed.

By combining these approaches, individuals and groups can work towards overcoming differences in ideation, expectations, and purpose, fostering a more inclusive and cooperative environment.

Personal and Group Collaboration seem an effective means to identifying, and perhaps resolving, difference. This latter purpose may assist in resolving, sharpening, and/or accepting difference.

ChatGPT

Absolutely, personal and group collaboration are powerful tools for identifying, understanding, and potentially resolving differences. Here's how collaboration can contribute to addressing and navigating differences:

Diverse Perspectives:

• Collective Wisdom: When individuals with different backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives collaborate, they bring a diverse range of ideas and insights to the table. This diversity can lead to richer, more comprehensive solutions to problems.

Enhanced Problem-Solving:

• Synergy: Collaborative efforts often result in synergies where the collective intelligence of the group is greater than the sum of its parts. This synergy can be particularly effective in finding innovative solutions to complex challenges.

Conflict Resolution:

• Open Dialogue: Collaboration encourages open dialogue and communication, providing a platform for addressing conflicts or differences constructively. Through respectful conversation, individuals can gain a deeper understanding of opposing viewpoints and work towards resolution.

Building Trust:

• Shared Experiences: Collaborative projects provide opportunities for individuals to work together, share experiences, and build trust. Trust is a crucial element in overcoming differences, as it establishes a foundation for open communication and cooperation.

Learning and Growth:

• Continuous Learning: Collaborating with others exposes individuals to new ideas and ways of thinking, fostering a culture of continuous learning. This, in turn, can contribute to personal and collective growth, allowing individuals to adapt to change and broaden their perspectives.

Common Goals:

• Alignment of Purpose: Collaborative efforts often revolve around shared goals and objectives. Identifying common ground in terms of purpose and vision helps unite individuals and groups, minimizing conflicts arising from divergent aims.

Inclusive Decision-Making:

• Participation and Inclusion: In a collaborative setting, decision-making can be more inclusive, involving input from all stakeholders. This inclusivity ensures that a broader range of perspectives is considered in the decision-making process.

Adaptability:

• Flexibility and Adaptation: Collaboration promotes adaptability by encouraging individuals to be open to new ideas and receptive to change. This flexibility is essential in navigating and embracing differences in rapidly evolving situations.

Cultural Competence:

• Cross-Cultural Collaboration: In a globalized world, collaboration often involves individuals from different cultural backgrounds. Engaging in cross-cultural collaboration fosters cultural competence and helps navigate and appreciate differences.

Conflict Transformation:

• Transformative Approaches: Collaborative processes can go beyond resolving conflicts to transforming them into opportunities for positive change. By addressing root causes and underlying issues, collaboration can lead to lasting solutions.

In summary, personal and group collaboration serves as a dynamic and effective means to identify, understand, and address differences. By fostering an environment of open communication, trust, and shared objectives, collaboration contributes to the resolution, refinement, and acceptance of differences in a wide range of contexts.

Considering all of the above it seems more hopeful the Voltaire statement "Common sense is not so common" may be surmountable... but what if it cannot. What are the items which may prevent personal and/or group transformation towards positive ends?

ChatGPT

While collaboration and efforts to bridge differences are valuable, there are several factors that can impede personal and group transformation toward positive ends. These obstacles may hinder the resolution of differences and the achievement of common goals. Some key factors include:

Lack of Open Communication:

• Communication Barriers: Ineffective or closed communication channels can obstruct the exchange of ideas and hinder understanding. Miscommunication, misunderstandings, or a lack of transparency may contribute to the persistence of differences.

Unwillingness to Change:

• Resistance to Change: Individuals or groups may resist change due to fear of the unknown, attachment to existing ways, or a reluctance to step out of their comfort zones. This resistance can impede transformational efforts.

Cultural and Institutional Barriers:

• Cultural and Institutional Inertia: Deep-seated cultural norms or institutional structures resistant to change can pose significant challenges. Overcoming ingrained practices may require substantial effort and time.

Lack of Trust:

• Distrust and Mistrust: A lack of trust among individuals or groups can undermine collaborative efforts. Building trust is crucial for effective communication, cooperation, and the willingness to work toward common goals.

Inequality and Power Imbalances:

• Power Dynamics: Unequal power distribution can hinder transformation efforts. Individuals or groups with more power may be resistant to relinquishing control, and those with less power may feel disempowered and less inclined to engage.

Cognitive Biases:

• Confirmation Bias: People may be inclined to seek out information that confirms their existing beliefs, reinforcing cognitive biases. This can lead to the rejection of alternative perspectives and impede transformative dialogue.

Lack of Inclusivity:

• Exclusionary Practices: Exclusive or discriminatory practices can hinder collaboration. If certain individuals or groups are consistently excluded from decision-making processes, it can perpetuate divisions and prevent positive transformation.

Fear of Failure:

• Risk Aversion: Fear of failure or negative consequences can deter individuals or groups from taking risks associated with transformation. A culture that punishes failure rather than viewing it as a learning opportunity can stifle innovation.

Short-Term Focus:

• Lack of Long-Term Vision: Focusing solely on short-term gains or immediate concerns may prevent individuals or groups from investing in long-term transformation efforts. Sustainable change often requires a forward-looking perspective.

Lack of Leadership Support:

• Lack of Leadership Commitment: Without strong leadership support, transformative initiatives may lack the necessary resources, direction, and influence. Leaders who are not committed to change can hinder progress.

Overcoming these obstacles requires a concerted effort from all involved parties. It involves fostering a culture of open communication, building trust, addressing power imbalances, promoting inclusivity, and cultivating leadership committed to positive transformation. Recognizing and actively working to overcome these challenges is essential for achieving meaningful and sustained positive change.

Are there brief historical examples of both instances? One with negative outcomes and the other with positive outcomes?

ChatGPT

Certainly, historical examples can provide insights into instances where efforts toward positive transformation were successful and where they faced significant challenges.

Positive Outcome:

• The Civil Rights Movement in the United States (1950s-1960s):

• The Civil Rights Movement in the United States aimed to end racial segregation and discrimination against African Americans. It was marked by nonviolent protests, legal challenges, and grassroots activism. Despite facing considerable resistance and violence, the movement achieved significant positive outcomes, including the passage of landmark legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. These legislative victories marked transformative changes in the legal and social landscape, contributing to greater racial equality.

Negative Outcome:

• Apartheid in South Africa (1948-1994):

• Apartheid was a system of institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination in South Africa. The policy was implemented by the National Party, leading to the marginalization and oppression of the majority black population. The regime faced widespread international condemnation and resistance from within South Africa. However, it took several decades before transformative change occurred. The negative outcome persisted for a long time due to deep-seated cultural and institutional barriers, as well as resistance from those in power. The system eventually crumbled in the early 1990s, leading to the establishment of a democratic, multiracial government.

These examples illustrate how historical movements can either successfully overcome significant challenges and bring about positive transformation (as in the Civil Rights Movement) or face prolonged periods of resistance and injustice before achieving positive change (as in the case of the dismantling of apartheid in South Africa). The success or failure of transformation efforts often depends on a complex interplay of social, political, economic, and cultural factors.

Are there more historical examples?

ChatGPT

Certainly, historical examples of both positive and negative outcomes in transformation efforts abound. Here are a few more examples:

Positive Outcome:

• The Women's Suffrage Movement (Late 19th - Early 20th Century):The women's suffrage movement sought to secure voting rights for women. Women across the globe, particularly in the United States and Europe, campaigned for their right to vote. Overcoming deep-seated cultural norms and significant resistance, the movement achieved success in various countries. For example, the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified in 1920, granting women the right to vote.

Negative Outcome:

• Rwandan Genocide (1994):The Rwandan Genocide was a tragic event marked by the mass killing of an estimated 800,000 people, primarily from the Tutsi ethnic group, within a span of 100 days. Deep-seated ethnic tensions, fueled by political and historical factors, led to the genocide. Despite international condemnation, the violence continued for several months before outside intervention and internal efforts gradually brought it to an end. The genocide stands as a stark example of the failure to prevent mass atrocities and the devastating consequences of long-standing ethnic divisions.

Positive Outcome:

• The End of Apartheid in Namibia (1988-1990):Namibia, formerly South West Africa, was under South African rule and subject to apartheid policies. The United Nations played a crucial role in pushing for Namibian independence. International pressure, combined with internal resistance, led to negotiations and the eventual withdrawal of South African forces. Namibia gained independence in 1990, marking the end of apartheid in the region and the establishment of a democratic government.

Negative Outcome:

• Cultural Revolution in China (1966-1976):The Cultural Revolution in China, initiated by Mao Zedong, aimed to reassert communist ideology and eliminate perceived bourgeois and traditional elements. The movement resulted in widespread persecution, violence, and social upheaval. It led to the loss of countless lives, the destruction of cultural heritage, and lasting social and economic impacts. The Cultural Revolution serves as an example of a transformative effort with profoundly negative consequences.

These examples highlight the varied outcomes of historical transformation efforts, showcasing instances where positive change was achieved through persistence, collaboration, and social mobilization, as well as situations where deep-seated conflicts and resistance led to tragic consequences.

How about historical theological outcomes?

ChatGPT

Historical theological outcomes have played a significant role in shaping religious beliefs, practices, and institutions. Here are a few examples of historical theological developments with both positive and negative implications:

Positive Outcome:

• The Reformation (16th Century):The Protestant Reformation, led by figures such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, and others, was a theological and religious movement that sought to reform the practices of the Catholic Church. The movement emphasized principles such as salvation by faith alone and the authority of Scripture. While the Reformation led to the division of Western Christianity into Protestant and Catholic branches, it also contributed to the promotion of individual religious freedom, the translation of the Bible into vernacular languages, and a greater emphasis on personal relationship with God.

Negative Outcome:

• The Great Schism (1054):The Great Schism of 1054 marked the formal split between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. The theological disagreements, cultural differences, and political tensions between the Eastern and Western branches of Christianity eventually led to the mutual excommunication of leaders in 1054. This schism resulted in a lasting division within Christianity, with distinct theological, liturgical, and organizational differences between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions.

Positive Outcome:

• Second Vatican Council (1962-1965):The Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) was a landmark event in the Roman Catholic Church. Convened by Pope John XXIII and continued by Pope Paul VI, Vatican II aimed to renew and update various aspects of Catholic theology and practice. The council led to significant reforms, including greater openness to ecumenism, changes to liturgical practices (such as allowing Mass to be celebrated in the vernacular), and a renewed emphasis on social justice and the role of the laity.

Negative Outcome: 

• The Spanish Inquisition (1478-1834):The Spanish Inquisition was a series of tribunals initiated by the Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile to maintain religious orthodoxy. While it had theological underpinnings, the Inquisition resulted in widespread persecution, torture, and execution of individuals deemed heretical or non-Christian. It stands as a dark chapter in the history of the Catholic Church, reflecting the dangers of using religious authority for coercive and oppressive purposes.

These historical theological outcomes illustrate the complex interplay between theological developments, institutional changes, and their impact on religious communities and societies. The positive outcomes often involve movements toward greater inclusivity, understanding, and adaptability, while negative outcomes can result from theological rigidity, power struggles, and the misuse of religious authority.

Are there any pertinent examples of church and state success or failure in this area?

ChatGPT

Certainly, the relationship between church and state has been a complex and dynamic aspect of history, with examples of both success and failure in navigating their interactions. Here are a few examples:

Success:

• American Model of Church-State Separation:The United States is often cited as a success in establishing a model of church-state separation. The U.S. Constitution's First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a state religion and protects the free exercise of religion. This has allowed for a diverse religious landscape, where individuals are free to practice their faith without state interference. The success of this model is seen in the relative religious harmony and the absence of religious conflicts that have plagued other regions.

Failure:

• The Holy Roman Empire and the Investiture Controversy (11th-12th Century):The Investiture Controversy was a power struggle between the papacy and secular rulers, particularly Holy Roman Emperors, over the appointment of bishops and church officials. The conflict arose from the dual role of bishops, who held both spiritual and secular authority. The controversy led to tensions, excommunications, and even armed conflicts. While the Concordat of Worms in 1122 attempted to resolve the issue, the Investiture Controversy highlighted the challenges and failures in achieving a harmonious relationship between church and state during this period.

Success:

• Edict of Milan (313 AD):The Edict of Milan, issued by the Roman emperors Constantine the Great and Licinius, marked a pivotal moment in the history of religious freedom. The edict granted tolerance to all religions within the Roman Empire, allowing Christians to practice their faith openly without fear of persecution. This contributed to the eventual establishment of Christianity as a recognized and favored religion within the empire.

Failure:

• Tudor England and the Church of England's Supremacy (16th Century):The reign of Henry VIII in England saw a complex interplay between church and state. Henry's desire for a male heir led to his break with the Catholic Church over his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. The Church of England was established with the monarch as the supreme head. While this resolved the immediate issue, it led to religious conflicts and tensions, including the persecution of Catholics and later conflicts between Anglicans and Puritans. The attempt to tightly integrate the church with the state in this context had both political and religious repercussions.

These examples highlight the challenges and varied outcomes in the relationship between church and state. Success often involves finding a balance that respects religious freedom, prevents undue interference in religious matters, and avoids the establishment of a single, state-sanctioned religion. Failures, on the other hand, often result from power struggles, attempts to impose religious uniformity, and the disregard for the principles of religious freedom and separation of powers.

Might you have any observations of today's trumpian church-state success or failure?

ChatGPT

As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, I don't have specific information on events or developments related to the intersection of church and state in the context of the Trump administration beyond that date. Therefore, I cannot provide real-time analysis or observations on recent occurrences. Please note that developments in this area may have occurred since my last update.

During Donald Trump's presidency, there were several instances where the relationship between church and state became a subject of discussion and debate. Here are a few observations based on events up to my last knowledge update:

1. Religious Liberty Executive Order:

• In May 2017, President Trump signed an executive order on religious liberty. The order aimed to address concerns among some religious groups about their ability to freely express their beliefs without facing legal repercussions. Critics argued that it could potentially allow for discrimination in the name of religious freedom.

2. Engagement with Evangelical Leaders:

• President Trump had a close relationship with many evangelical leaders and sought their support. This engagement led to policies and decisions that aligned with certain conservative religious values, such as the appointment of judges with conservative views on social issues.

3. Controversies Surrounding Church Photo-Op:

• In June 2020, there was a controversial incident in which protesters near the White House were forcefully cleared to allow for President Trump to pose for a photo holding a Bible in front of St. John's Episcopal Church. The incident raised questions about the use of religious symbols for political purposes.

4. Supreme Court Appointments:

• The appointments of conservative judges, including three Supreme Court justices during Trump's tenure, had implications for cases related to religious freedom and social issues. These appointments were generally well-received by conservative religious groups.

5. Policies on Contraceptive Coverage:

• The Trump administration took actions to expand exemptions for employers with religious or moral objections to providing contraceptive coverage in their health insurance plans. This move was praised by religious conservatives but criticized by those concerned about women's access to reproductive healthcare.

• Public opinion on these issues and the Trump administration's approach to the intersection of church and state varied widely, reflecting the diverse perspectives within the United States.

It's important to note that the evaluation of "success" or "failure" in this context is subjective and often depends on individual perspectives and values. Additionally, developments may have occurred since my last update, and I recommend checking more recent sources for the latest information and analyses.

As these "social policy changes" are disputable to many in a free, civil society how might they be resolved with conservative religious elements?

ChatGPT

Resolving disputes over social policy changes involving conservative religious elements in a free and civil society requires a careful and inclusive approach that respects differing perspectives. Here are some strategies that can contribute to constructive dialogue and potential resolution:

Open and Respectful Dialogue:

• Encourage open and respectful dialogue between different stakeholders, including religious leaders, policymakers, and representatives of the affected communities. Providing a platform for genuine conversation allows for the exchange of ideas and helps build mutual understanding.

Engage Interfaith Dialogue:

• Facilitate interfaith dialogue to bring together representatives from various religious traditions. This can foster common ground, promote understanding, and highlight shared values, even among diverse religious perspectives.

Educational Initiatives:

• Implement educational initiatives to inform the public about different perspectives on social policy issues. Knowledge about the religious and cultural underpinnings of diverse viewpoints can foster empathy and reduce misconceptions.

Community Involvement:

• Involve local communities in decision-making processes. Community members, including those with conservative religious beliefs, should have the opportunity to voice their concerns, propose alternatives, and be part of the conversation.

Mediation and Conflict Resolution:

• Utilize mediation and conflict resolution techniques to address disputes. Independent mediators or facilitators can help guide discussions, identify common ground, and work towards consensus.

Respect for Pluralism:

• Emphasize the importance of pluralism within a free society. Acknowledge and celebrate diversity, recognizing that individuals and communities may hold different beliefs and values.

Legal Protections:

• Ensure that legal protections for religious freedom are clearly defined and respected. This includes understanding the boundaries between religious freedom and other societal interests, such as non-discrimination principles.

Religious Freedom Commissions:

• Establish commissions or advisory bodies that include representatives from diverse religious communities. These bodies can offer recommendations on policies that respect religious freedom while considering broader societal needs.

Seek Common Ground:

• Identify areas of common ground where compromise may be possible. While not all differences may be reconciled, finding commonalities can help build bridges and foster cooperation.

Long-Term Engagement:

• Recognize that resolving disputes may require long-term engagement. Change often takes time, and ongoing dialogue can contribute to evolving perspectives and solutions.

Leadership and Role Models:

• Leaders, both religious and political, play a crucial role in setting the tone for respectful dialogue. Encourage leaders to model open communication, tolerance, and a commitment to finding common solutions.

Legal Challenges and Appeals:

• If necessary, ensure that legal mechanisms are available for addressing grievances. This includes opportunities for appeals and legal challenges, especially in cases where fundamental rights may be at stake.

Resolving disputes involving conservative religious elements in a civil society requires a commitment to pluralism, open communication, and a recognition of the diverse perspectives that make up a free society. By fostering an environment of inclusivity and understanding, it becomes more possible to navigate complex social policy changes in a way that respects the rights and values of all members of the community.

Hence, personal and group dialogue might be an effect solution to discussing hot disagreement between religious and civil groups... and yet, my experience tells my religious groups would be the last to change their opinions and beliefs structure. What can a civilly free democratic society do in the face of these difficulties?

ChatGPT

Navigating hot disagreements between religious and civil groups, especially when there is resistance to change, can indeed be challenging. In a civilly free democratic society, several strategies can be employed to address these difficulties and foster a more inclusive and tolerant environment:

Promote Civic Education:

• Implement comprehensive civic education programs that emphasize the principles of democracy, pluralism, and the importance of respecting diverse perspectives. Educating citizens about the foundations of a democratic society can contribute to greater understanding and tolerance.

Legal Protections and Safeguards:

• Ensure that legal protections are in place to safeguard the rights of individuals and groups, including religious freedom. Establish a legal framework that balances the rights of religious groups with the broader principles of equality, non-discrimination, and the protection of individual liberties.

Independent Judiciary:

• Maintain an independent judiciary that can impartially adjudicate disputes and ensure that legal decisions are based on constitutional principles. An impartial judiciary helps protect the rights of all citizens, including those with differing religious beliefs.

Media Literacy and Responsible Journalism:

• Promote media literacy to help citizens critically evaluate information sources. Encourage responsible journalism that provides balanced and accurate coverage of diverse perspectives, fostering a more informed public discourse.

Community Engagement Initiatives:

• Facilitate community engagement initiatives that bring together diverse religious and civil groups. Encourage dialogue, cultural exchange, and collaborative projects that build bridges and promote mutual understanding.

Interfaith Dialogue:

• Support interfaith dialogue initiatives that involve leaders and members of various religious traditions. Interfaith dialogue can promote empathy, dispel stereotypes, and highlight shared values.

Conflict Resolution and Mediation:

• Develop mechanisms for conflict resolution and mediation. Trained mediators can assist in facilitating constructive conversations and finding common ground, even in deeply rooted disagreements.

Public Forums and Debates:

• Organize public forums and debates on contentious issues, allowing for respectful and moderated discussions. These forums can provide a platform for different perspectives to be heard and may contribute to shifting public opinion over time.

Promote Inclusive Leadership:

• Encourage inclusive leadership at various levels of society. Leaders who champion diversity, inclusion, and the principles of a democratic society can set positive examples and influence public attitudes.

Protection of Minority Rights:

• Prioritize the protection of minority rights within the democratic framework. This includes ensuring that minority religious groups are not marginalized or discriminated against, and their voices are considered in the decision-making process.

Long-Term Community Building:

• Recognize that change may take time, and focus on long-term community building. Establish platforms for ongoing dialogue, relationship-building, and collaborative initiatives that contribute to positive social change.

Public Awareness Campaigns:

• Launch public awareness campaigns that emphasize the benefits of diversity and the importance of respecting individual rights. These campaigns can counter misinformation and promote a culture of tolerance.

It's important to note that these strategies should be implemented with sensitivity to cultural and religious contexts, and a commitment to upholding democratic values. Overcoming deeply entrenched beliefs and fostering a more inclusive society often requires a multifaceted and sustained effort.

Moving from a civilly free democratic state centered on moral empathy for the plight of others seems extremely difficult to produce in the light of the human condition to protect itself and vested interests such as one's belief structure. Often the religious element claims immorality for morality, and morality for immorality... that is, it claims wrong is right and right is wrong in light of its religious beliefs. To a civilly free and open democratic society willing to co-exist and co-operate with all members of its society the conservative mindset can present (extreme) difficulties to such a democratic institution attempting to remove its discriminatory practices off the backs of the discriminated (racial minorities, religious nationalities, sex and gender differences, medical health options to all versus limited medical health options to some).

ChatGPT

You've highlighted a significant challenge that democratic societies often face when attempting to balance the principles of individual freedom and religious belief with the broader goals of inclusivity, non-discrimination, and the protection of minority rights. The tension between the preservation of personal belief structures and the promotion of a society that values diversity and equal rights can indeed be a complex and delicate matter. Here are a few additional insights into addressing these challenges:

Dialogue and Education:

• Continuous and open dialogue is crucial. Engage in educational initiatives that promote understanding and empathy. This includes not only educating the wider public but also providing opportunities for individuals with differing beliefs to engage in respectful conversation.

Legal Protections and Boundaries:

• Clearly define the boundaries between individual freedom of belief and actions that may infringe on the rights and well-being of others. Ensure that legal protections are in place to prevent discrimination based on race, religion, gender, or other protected characteristics.

Religious Literacy:

• Promote religious literacy to foster a better understanding of different belief systems. This can contribute to breaking down stereotypes and dispelling misconceptions, creating a more informed and tolerant society.

Secular Governance:

• Emphasize the importance of secular governance, where government decisions are based on reason, evidence, and the well-being of all citizens rather than religious doctrine. This helps maintain a neutral and fair approach to diverse belief systems.

Ethical Leadership:

• Encourage ethical leadership that upholds the principles of justice, equality, and human rights. Leaders who prioritize these values can influence public discourse and set the tone for inclusive policies.

International Human Rights Standards:

• Uphold international human rights standards as a foundation for domestic policies. International agreements and treaties provide a framework for protecting the rights of individuals and minorities, regardless of their religious beliefs.

Public Engagement and Activism:

• Facilitate public engagement and activism. Encourage citizens to peacefully advocate for their rights and for the rights of others. Public pressure and activism can influence policy changes and foster a culture of inclusivity.

Social and Cultural Initiatives:

• Support social and cultural initiatives that celebrate diversity. Festivals, events, and programs that showcase the richness of various cultures and beliefs contribute to a more inclusive society.

Collaborative Decision-Making:

• Promote collaborative decision-making processes that involve representatives from diverse backgrounds. Inclusive policymaking ensures that the perspectives of all citizens are considered.

Media Responsibility:

• Encourage responsible media reporting that avoids perpetuating stereotypes and biases. Media plays a significant role in shaping public perceptions, and responsible journalism can contribute to a more informed and tolerant society.

It's important to acknowledge that achieving a balance between individual beliefs and societal goals is an ongoing process. Striking this balance requires a commitment from both individuals and institutions to uphold the principles of democracy, human rights, and social justice while respecting the diversity of beliefs within a society.

In the main, religious beliefs are stubborn and resistant to change. Religious beliefs also underline racial, national, religious, and personal discriminations which refuse to be displaced by open acceptable practices of common sense morality. A sense of incompleteness and failure seems to inhabit a truly civilly free society when some of its members prefer to continue in their religious mindsets of unfairness and unfair relationship toward the unacceptable other...

ChatGPT

Your observation touches on a fundamental tension that exists in societies where religious beliefs, which are deeply personal and often rooted in tradition, encounter the principles of equal rights and social justice. This tension can indeed create challenges for the realization of a truly civilly free society. Here are some additional considerations:

Inherent Conservatism:

• Religious beliefs often carry a sense of tradition and continuity. They can be deeply conservative, resisting change, especially when long-held doctrines and practices are involved. This conservatism may extend to societal attitudes, affecting issues such as gender roles, sexuality, and relationships with those outside the religious community.

Identity and Belonging:

• For many individuals, religious identity is closely tied to their sense of self and community. Challenging religious beliefs can be perceived as a threat to one's identity and a rupture with a community that provides a sense of belonging. This can create resistance to change even when it conflicts with principles of equality.

Selective Interpretation:

• People may selectively interpret religious teachings to fit their existing beliefs or prejudices. This can lead to the use of religious doctrines to justify discriminatory practices, despite the presence of alternative interpretations that promote inclusivity and compassion.

Fear of the Unknown:

• Change can evoke fear, particularly when it challenges deeply ingrained beliefs. Members of a religious community may fear the unknown consequences of embracing more inclusive practices, leading to resistance even in the face of evolving societal norms.

Lack of Exposure:

• Limited exposure to diverse perspectives and experiences can contribute to the perpetuation of discriminatory beliefs. In some cases, individuals may not have had meaningful interactions with people from different backgrounds, reinforcing stereotypes and prejudices.

Generational Shift:

• Change in religious beliefs and practices often occurs gradually, and generational shifts can play a role. Younger generations may be more open to evolving views, but resistance can persist among older generations who may hold more traditional perspectives.

Role of Religious Authorities:

• The stance of religious authorities and leaders can significantly influence the beliefs and practices of a religious community. When leaders resist change, it can impede progress toward more inclusive and tolerant attitudes.

Balancing Individual Freedom and Societal Values:

• In a civilly free society, there is a delicate balance between individual freedom of religious expression and the promotion of societal values that uphold equality and justice. Striking this balance requires ongoing dialogue and negotiation.

Addressing these challenges involves fostering understanding, engaging in respectful dialogue, and working toward a shared vision of a society that upholds both individual freedom and collective well-being. It may require a combination of legislative measures, educational initiatives, and community-led efforts to encourage more inclusive and empathetic perspectives. Recognizing the complexity of these issues is a crucial step toward finding meaningful and sustainable solutions.

To wrap up, this discussion shows the degree to which "Common sense is not so common" among members of the same society... that there must be a civic willingness to live peaceably with one another when commonality is eschewed for discriminatory traditionalism. Both the Magna Carta as well as the teachings of the Apostle Paul and Jesus in the New Testament declare one seeks love and compassion with one's neighbor when all else fails. It is the higher calling - if not the highest subversive calling - to any nation wishing to avoid forms of societal oppression, division, suspicion, fear, and refusal to see one another re a universal blessing and benefit to any democracy.

ChatGPT

Your thoughtful reflections encapsulate the essence of the challenges and aspirations inherent in the pursuit of a just and inclusive society. Indeed, the idea that "Common sense is not so common" underscores the complexities that arise when individuals and communities grapple with the tension between traditional beliefs and the evolving values of a democratic and civilly free society.

The call for a civic willingness to live peaceably with one another, even in the face of discriminatory traditionalism, resonates with the foundational principles of justice, compassion, and love espoused in documents like the Magna Carta and the teachings of figures such as the Apostle Paul and Jesus. These principles advocate for a higher calling—a commitment to a shared humanity that transcends divisions and embraces the richness of diversity within a society.

Your mention of love and compassion as the ultimate response echoes a universal theme found in many ethical and religious traditions. It serves as a reminder that, even in the midst of disagreements and entrenched beliefs, a commitment to empathy and understanding can pave the way for positive change. This higher calling challenges societies to rise above oppression, division, suspicion, and fear, fostering an environment where each individual is seen as a universal blessing and a benefit to the collective well-being of a democracy.

The pursuit of such ideals requires ongoing efforts, dialogue, and a collective commitment to building bridges of understanding. It is an aspiration that speaks to the heart of creating a society where respect for individual rights, inclusivity, and a shared commitment to common values form the bedrock of civic life.

Thank you for engaging in this insightful and meaningful discussion. If you have any more questions or if there's anything else I can assist you with, feel free to reach out.

Thank you for your dialogue. Peace.

ChatGPT

You're very welcome! If you ever have more questions or want to engage in further dialogue, feel free to return. Wishing you peace and all the best!

"Common Sense," created by R.E. Slater  |   Imagine   |   Trademarked