Will
Green Horn
Posts: 74
|
Post by Will on Sept 15, 2009 12:52:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rodwilson on Sept 15, 2009 13:01:20 GMT -5
Thanks Will. I'm looking forward to hearing your speaker. I have gotten somewhat off track here as we were intending to raise some awareness about Revitalizing Utica, the group. It's not just me. Hopefully you guys have met "revitalizingutica" either in the Introductions thread or here in this one. There are others involved as well but I leave it up them to introduce or divulge themselves. Thank you all for support. |
|
|
|
Post by fiona on Sept 15, 2009 13:21:56 GMT -5
I would like to add to.... start a discussion about the "social contract" both actual and implied between the well being and strength of neighborhoods and their churches. How about it? Anyone care to jump in? Dave? let's go on the premise that when the neighborhood dies, the social contract is changed, broken, and the spirit of the people is broken. I am not a religious idelalouge, but I think that any discussion about revitalizing Utica should include this. any takers?
|
|
|
|
Post by rodwilson on Sept 15, 2009 14:50:29 GMT -5
I would like to add to.... start a discussion about the "social contract" both actual and implied between the well being and strength of neighborhoods and their churches. How about it? Anyone care to jump in? Dave? let's go on the premise that when the neighborhood dies, the social contract is changed, broken, and the spirit of the people is broken. I am not a religious idelalouge, but I think that any discussion about revitalizing Utica should include this. any takers? I guess I don't understand what you mean by "social contract". Could you elaborate? |
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Sept 15, 2009 19:19:26 GMT -5
Social Contract - an agreement among individuals to cooperate for greater security, which results in the loss of some personal liberties. (Farlex Free Dictionary.) and from Wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract"The notion of the social contract implies that the people give up some rights to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law." "The social contract and the civil rights ... are neither "natural rights" nor permanently fixed. Therefore, when failings are found in the contract, we renegotiate to change the terms, using methods such as elections and legislature." As applied to churches, I'll let Fiona expound on her thought, but I'd take her comments to mean that the presence of a church in a community implies its willing participation in the affairs of that community (city, neighborhood or street) and a sharing of the outcomes as a true neighbor. So, for example, it is not permissible for a church to be a "downtown church" with a sphere interests applicable only to those members who commute from the suburbs or better parts of the city. As a resident of downtown, the church must be a willing participant in the neighborhood. |
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Sept 15, 2009 19:30:20 GMT -5
I'll make this a separate post, but my personal hot button about social contracts are businesses who extract from a community rather than give to it. I believe that a business is given a right to exist and special considerations by the people of the community in which the business operates. In return, that business is morally responsible (and should be legally so, in my opinion) to advance the welfare of the community while seeking profits. Such responsibility would include providing jobs for members of that community and paying taxes to that community. In consideration, the business is given a license to operate. We can argue the pros and cons and benefits to each party, but the fact remains that a business is not a citizen and should not be given the same status or freedoms and discretion as a citizen. A legal formation of an organization, known as a "business," should never have rights and privileges superseding those of citizens.
That said, I'm all for capitalism and maximum profits.
|
|
|
|
Post by rodwilson on Sept 15, 2009 20:07:13 GMT -5
Social Contract - an agreement among individuals to cooperate for greater security, which results in the loss of some personal liberties. (Farlex Free Dictionary.) and from Wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract"The notion of the social contract implies that the people give up some rights to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law." "The social contract and the civil rights ... are neither "natural rights" nor permanently fixed. Therefore, when failings are found in the contract, we renegotiate to change the terms, using methods such as elections and legislature." As applied to churches, I'll let Fiona expound on her thought, but I'd take her comments to mean that the presence of a church in a community implies its willing participation in the affairs of that community (city, neighborhood or street) and a sharing of the outcomes as a true neighbor. So, for example, it is not permissible for a church to be a "downtown church" with a sphere interests applicable only to those members who commute from the suburbs or better parts of the city. As a resident of downtown, the church must be a willing participant in the neighborhood. Thanks Dave, understood. I figured as much. Interesting aspect regarding the loss of personal liberties. I guess that puts a name to the concept. Great link, thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by rodwilson on Sept 15, 2009 20:11:28 GMT -5
I'll make this a separate post, but my personal hot button about social contracts are businesses who extract from a community rather than give to it. I believe that a business is given a right to exist and special considerations by the people of the community in which the business operates. In return, that business is morally responsible (and should be legally so, in my opinion) to advance the welfare of the community while seeking profits. Such responsibility would include providing jobs for members of that community and paying taxes to that community. In consideration, the business is given a license to operate. We can argue the pros and cons and benefits to each party, but the fact remains that a business is not a citizen and should not be given the same status or freedoms and discretion as a citizen. A legal formation of an organization, known as a "business," should never have rights and privileges superseding those of citizens. That said, I'm all for capitalism and maximum profits. Couldn't agree more. Cooperation of said businesses is paramount to recovery here and a healthy community overall. If you're into REALLY scary movies check out "The Corporation". www.thecorporation.com/ |
|
|
|
Post by rodwilson on Sept 15, 2009 20:14:26 GMT -5
BTW, is any body familiar with this or where they are in the process. I just found it tonight. I see that we just missed a meeting in East Utica. www.uticamasterplan.org/Def take a min to check out at least the first few mins of "Downtown Marketing" |
|
Will
Green Horn
Posts: 74
|
Post by Will on Sept 15, 2009 21:51:11 GMT -5
The notion of the social contract implies that the people give up some rights to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law. That makes me VERY uncomfortable. I don not want to give up any more rights to ANY governmental "authority" |
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Sept 15, 2009 22:30:05 GMT -5
The notion of the social contract implies that the people give up some rights to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law. That makes me VERY uncomfortable. I don not want to give up any more rights to ANY governmental "authority" Will: Yes, there seems to be a difference between a pure democracy and a social contract. A social contract acknowledges an entity called "the government." Whereas a pure democracy has only "us." I suppose that a pure democracy may only work (administratively) up to a certain number of citizens. |
|
|
|
Post by fiona on Sept 15, 2009 22:41:54 GMT -5
Dave: As always, thanks. Yes, that is partly what I meant by social contract. I think that a broader sociological term, not only emcompasses business, but the people's beliefe systems and those beliefs as they are applied to the greater system: ie: by living in a city we expect that "the city" will provide for us: a way to make a living, raise our families, worship, interact, act out our fears and express great joy through the arts, sports, ect. However, the "city" is just a conglomeration of houses and streets that is never static; it is always morphing into something else, yet we continue to expect "the city" to provide. What we really have are people, and people only, those who run the city, those we have given over our 'controls to. The city is only as fresh, changing and vibrant as those who profess to run it; ie: the city fathers, mothers, ect. For example: the ward boss of the 19th and 20th century. And as for cities being safe, cities are, were never "safe". They were only safe for the very wealthy, who could afford to wall themselves off, or live in large buildings, or castels, ect. the rest of the people took their chances. I think an excellent example of a type of social contract between persons is seen in the stories of old Utica we have been researching, particularaly the Genesee Flats. The people expected Latcher to take care of them, even after they had lost everything,... and he did. The people expected Monroe and O'Hanlon to be heroes, to lay down their lives if need be... and they did. I could go on and on. The people expected the church to care for orphans ... and it did. The relationship with the old city was different then, based on a different set of expectations. We can't go backwards, however, history is all around us and we are caught in it, like it or not. And yes, the churches were integral parts of those neighborhoods, the churches still stand, through some of them are empty. The churches stood long after the stores closed, the old ones died, the streets decayed, the houses were burned, still stood when the term crackhead hit the vernacular of our lives. To rebuild the city those living there must restore that social contract from the bottom up. The influx of criminals, poverty, ect has broken it into unreckognizable bits. To wit: last week I went down to Grace Church to do some historical research. I spoke at some length with the Pastor. He expressed much sadness and dismay about the state of things in Utica and the effects it was having on the church. Sadly, he said, the church will only be open "until the money runs out." I looked around at this beautiful building, this bastion of faith and hope in downtown Utica and I felt a pain in my chest, because I knew it was true. I guess I have said enough. Let someone else take the floor.
|
|
|
|
Post by rodwilson on Sept 15, 2009 22:48:30 GMT -5
That makes me VERY uncomfortable. I don not want to give up any more rights to ANY governmental "authority" Will: Yes, there seems to be a difference between a pure democracy and a social contract. A social contract acknowledges an entity called "the government." Whereas a pure democracy has only "us." I suppose that a pure democracy may only work (administratively) up to a certain number of citizens. "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Thomas Jefferson |
|
Just The Facts
Newbie
Step outside, If I am not out there in 5 min then start without me.
Posts: 26
|
Post by Just The Facts on Sept 15, 2009 23:48:31 GMT -5
Hi everyone
I have had a busy work schedule and have not had much time to post or read the boards. Hope everyone is well.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Sept 16, 2009 7:45:34 GMT -5
... The churches stood long after the stores closed, the old ones died, the streets decayed, the houses were burned ... To rebuild the city those living there must restore that social contract from the bottom up. I think that's what Rod is saying. People will need to grab the grass by the roots, so to speak, and become ready to take charge of their own destiny. Rod is more optimistic than I. But that's OK, the younger will always surprise the older. Thank God. Sadly, he said, the church (Grace) will only be open "until the money runs out." I looked around at this beautiful building, this bastion of faith and hope in downtown Utica and I felt a pain in my chest, because I knew it was true.. I'm told that another downtown church, St. John's, opened its doors to more than just the suburban crowd of commuters and as well serves its local (and from what I hear, enthusiastic) neighborhood population. Does Grace do that? |
|
