Human Hypocrisy

What rights do we really have? Or what rights to we have, that when exercised, infringe upon the rights of others? Or what rights do we have, that when exercised, do not infringe upon the rights of others?

 

There is much outrage over the passing of Prop 8. There are two sides of this argument. One comes from those who are against Prop 8. They argue that they should have the same right to love each other and marry as heterosexual couples. Those for Prop 8 argue that same sex couples already have the right to have recognized unions and that our government cannot stop any religious organization from performing same sex ceremonies. Those for Prop 8 argue that same sex marriage being legalized threatens the sanctity of marriage. Those against Prop 8 argue that heterosexuals have already de-sanctified marriage with high rates of divorce and adultery. Those for Prop 8 argue that homosexuality is against Biblical law. Those against Prop 8 argue that God is love and therefore any love is of God. Those for Prop 8 argue that if same sex marriage is legalized then they will lose their freedom of religion because they will be forced, by law, to recognize and perform same sex marriage or have legal action taken against them. Those against Prop 8…you see how we could go on like this all day.

 

I guess what folks need to understand is that their side being granted certain rights will affect the rights of their opposition. If SSM is legalized then those opposed to SSM must go against personal or religious beliefs and acknowledge and recognize SSM, and consequently expose them to a lifestyle they believe to be sin. If SSM is not legalized then homosexual couples will fail to have their relationships legally recognized and be unable to partake in the benefits of such a union.

 

Let’s move to another issue. Does it infringe upon our rights of freedom of religion to have religious iconography displayed in public? Do such displays stop anyone or threaten them from practicing their own religion? If not, why are they being removed based on this argument? And if so, then isn’t it fair to say that the presence of legally recognized gay marriages is a threat to heterosexual marriages? I’m not making an argument for or against SSM. Nor am I making an argument for or against having religious displays in public.  What I am doing is pointing out how we so willingly use one argument to fight for our views on one issue and then turn around and call that same argument bogus when it doesn’t suit our cause on another issue.  

 

We’re human. We are usually not interested in people’s right. We’re only interested in our own rights and personal agendas and the rest of the world be damned…although we’re so very creative in our guise to convince ourselves that our cause is meant for the good of everyone. We’re all hypocrites when our standard for truth does not extend past our own preferences.

Unprogressive People

I’ve thought a lot about progress lately. We have created technology that allows us to talk across the globe, watch television and record one-hundred of our favorite songs from a tiny device that fits in our pocket; cancer and other diseases are no longer a definite death sentences thanks to medical advancements, we can turn on the lights and adjust the thermostat in our homes from a remote location because of smart architecture; and we have automobiles that can give us step by step instructions to any destination. As far as we have come in the world of science, medicine and machinery, I still wonder if we have advanced as humans. Sure we have done away with shock therapy as a treatment for depression, outlawed inhumane punishment of criminals, and abolished slavery. While we have made strides toward progress on many substantial issues and champion ourselves as progressive, I cannot help but notice how we retreat on so many others issues of life but champion that too. We, like spoiled toddlers, throw a tantrum when we don’t get our way. We promote every sinful, selfish desire we have in the name of “personal freedom” and exhibit animal-like behavior and call it “self expression.” We are very clever, us humans, in finding ways to wallow in our own destructive behavior. We relish our right to do so. And I guess it is true that we have the right and should have the right to do so. Unfortunately, we neglect to understand what all that entails. I once heard someone say, “When we assert our right, we accept responsibility.” I question whether most people asserting their rights grasp this concept. So many times “my right to do –fill in the blank” translates into “I want to do what I want to do and I deserve to do it without the opposition, chastising or criticism of others.” We never have that right. Never. Because while we have our rights, others still have theirs and opposition is included in that package. There will always be people standing in our way of satisfying every fleshly want we can conjure. That is how it should be. The great tragedy is that we confuse our own individual wants and desires as the standard for what progress should be.  

           

Ultimately, I have come to understand that the only progress humans have made in the last thousands and thousands of years of human history is that our “progress” is limited to finding more sophisticated ways to rationalize our own sinful, self indulgent ways.

Got hope?

The last few days I have listened in on or read mild political debates between friends. What I keep hearing is “this is the first time in eight years that people have hope.” Initially, I glossed over this statement but as I re-read Facebook conversations I began to really think about what was being said; “This is the first time in eight years that people have hope.” This disturbs me for several reasons. I struggle with which part of this enormous inaccuracy to tackle first: the fact that Americans think they are hopeless or the fact that they believe hope is coming from one flawed human being.

 

Let’s start with the lesser lie. When they say “people” they are generally referring to Americans. I would like to know when in the last eight or fifteen or twenty or thirty years have Americans ever been without hope? It boggles my mind that Americans would have the audacity to complain of hopelessness. Even amidst the most tragic of circumstances anyone in this privileged, spoiled country has had to endure in the several decades preceding this presidential election. I am well aware of trying circumstances and the fact that they do occur here in the good ol’ US of A but if there is one thing we have never had it is lack of hope. In fact, this country provides the greatest opportunities for hope that can be found anywhere in this dying world. People are crossing our borders, as they have been since our inception, by the millions for that very thing. So why do people claim hopelessness?

 

The other unforgivable claim in this statement is the implication that a politician being named president could ever be our source of hope. Can one person, being wholly man, offer true hope? Can Mr. Obama heal addiction, disease and despair? Can government policy, however effective, save souls? How then can we put our hope in him? Perhaps I am putting too much weight in this statement and what the authors are simply trying to imply is that we now have a greater hope in America’s ability to govern (more) responsibly. But that is not what was said. “This is the first time in eight years that people have hope.” That is said. I am not irritated with Mr. Obama and his campaign slogan. The man is (or was) trying to win an election. The strategy: to convince people that they have no hope and then convince them that only he is capable of providing it. That is the way of a politician. You cannot be mad at a dog for being a dog. What baffles me is that Americans bought into this ideology. What makes it so repulsive is that they bought into it while texting on their iphones and watching their cable news networks from their climate controlled lofts.

 

I do not wish to imply disrespect to our president elect. While I did not vote for him or agree with his ideas of what government should be I do believe in supporting and praying for our leaders. I’m sure my liberal friends (the ones who hated George W with the hate of 1000 suns) would expect nothing less. I also do not mean to disrespect those who are enduring trying circumstances. However, I am calling on liberals and conservatives alike to think before they speak and to think about what they are really saying. I would also like all of us to take a long hard look at our lives, whether, in times of trial or times of prosperity and ask ourselves if we have ever truly known hopelessness.

What do we believe in?

I’ve become increasingly concerned about my country. I happen to think there are many positives in the election of Barack Obama despite the fact that I don’t agree with his ideals (necessarily) and did not vote for him. When I say his ideals, I am not referring to his so-called beliefs but rather the implementation of them. I do think all people should have affordable healthcare, good jobs, food, financial peace etc. What I do not and cannot agree with is government being responsible for providing them. I certainly understand how that might appear to be a good solution in theory, but what must be sacrificed in order to have those things? What depresses me about the election of Barack Obama is not his past, his friends or his wife’s new found pride in her country. My dissapointment comes from the American people who have lost their willingness to do for themselves; the total willingness to abandon their  freedom in exchange for releasing their personal responsibility. Or perhaps their ingorance to the fact that they are doing so.