I was reading the NY Times online this morning (instead of working), and I came across these two articles. The first is an op-ed piece about the President's fiddling with the meaning of the Geneva Conventions; the second is an article about conservative Christianity's latest take on gay marriage. These are the sorts of issues that hurt my head and heart just thinking about them.
President Bush and the Geneva Conventions: Nevermind that war is horrible, and nevermind that many of us wish we weren't in Iraq. I may not like war, but I am too much of a cynic to believe that world peace will ever be achieved by human will alone. Still, if we're going to fight, then by all means, we should attempt to preserve some level of humanity and ethics. I worry so much about our country, because we are losing ground when comes to worldwide opinions of our actions and our ethics. What worries me most is not so much that we're losing face but that we really are becoming a nation all about appearances.
We can save face by redefining ethics to suit our cause. Then, whatever we do is ethical because we have deemed it so. We can appear to be the greatest nation ever if everyone emulates us. The sad thing is that many nations used to emulate us, until the veneer covering our slipping standards began to wear thin. Why do we have to make everyone else in the world just like us? "Democracy' as we have it is a good thing, and of course, I'm grateful to live in a country where I can do whatever I want (provided I find the money). But, is bombing really the best method of persuasion? Is it our only recourse? Ok. Maybe I'm getting a little off topic.
What frightens me most about all this talk of clarifying the Geneva Conventions is that I (we) really have so little clue what goes on above us in the government or out there in the world. I want to know and yet I'm afraid. I want to think that our nation is right in its actions, but I don't trust that we are. I also want to think that letting people to their own methods is right, but there are certain humanitarian issues at stake that make me think this isn't totally right either. How, if at all, can balance be achieved?
I sometimes feel sick when I begin to reflect on conservative Christianity. One part of the article reads, "Several organizers at the event lamented that opposition to same-sex marriage, a major catalyst for Christian conservative turnout two years ago, had lost some of its emotional resonance." It can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/25/us/politics/25conserve.html_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
Why would you want to generate more social strife? It just seems that people of faith more so than any others ought to be the ones trying to make society better. Maybe from their perspective they are making society better by defending 'traditional values' (whose tradition ?-- we might ask). But, in my mind, time would be better spent trying to do things like fight hunger and poverty and poor education than to champion causes which seem inherently grey. (But, then again, the cause isn't grey to conservative Christianity, is it?) Of course it is unavoidable that a person's religion affects their political perspective. True separation isn't possible, I don't think, but couldn't there be a more balanced approach?
Maybe I should have more compassion on them. I try to. I realize that people react strongly when their security and comfort are challenged--this includes beliefs, I think. Also, many of these people really are sincere in their belief that their efforts could help people both now and in the after life. My reaction to them is probably just as much a response to a perceived threat to my own mental calm. I often resent people who are so certain, because I am the sort of person who cannot easily commit to opinions or beliefs (except of course the belief that many beliefs are subject to question and doubt). It's not that I don't believe in truth at all; I just tend to see complications all around me and hesitate to affirm things too quickly, especially when it comes to religion, spirituality, and other things that strike me as intensely personal.
My problem as always when reflecting on these issues is that I am unable to come to a clear conclusion about them, except to conclude that they are complicated and confusing. I am naturally afraid of all such discussions, because I feel pressure to have an opinion and to decide what is right. But, how can I? Yet, without some idea of what is best (perhaps a better term than 'right') how can I act? This is why I like to think about history and philosophy: one, the stakes aren't as high when making judgments about things that I have already passed, and two, maybe if I can understand why things are the way they are, a path forward will become more obvious. (Also, I am weak and afraid to have opinions.)
3 comments:
i don't believe that you are weak at all. i think, the fact that you don't necessarily believe one thing or the other is a really good thing. i am pretty much across the board agnostic. i am only terribly bothered when people try to make what works for them, the standard for everyone. whether they be judging their decisions on religion, values, politics or a combination of all of the above. a lot of people (and this country especially) has an obsession with taking sides. you have to be left or right, for the troops or against the country, deeply religious or an atheist. if more people were able to see the "grays" in life, i think the world would be a better place overall. things change, we're evolving socially constantly and there will always be another hurdle to overcome. in the last 8 or so years, everyone has become ultra sensitive and adamantly stick to their "values," whether they be the rightest right or the leftest left. it's a product of war and social unrest and terrorism and sexual awakening and all of these things we've been through before, but always under another guise. i think people like you are particularly important in the evolution of humanity. to start questioning and examining what we've been through and where were going. it's hard to see everything for what it is when you're only looking one way.
thanks, Leanne for the support!! The polarization of our society is fascinating (and scary because it's happening NOW). I guess it's easy to feel pressure when you're one of the few in the middle, eh?
not to be too terribly cliché, but dickens sort of hit the proverbial nail on the head when he wrote "it was the best of times, it was the worst of times." because the french revolution, like any period of social upheaval, did bring out the best and worst in people.
this is the way i tend to see it, and it gives me some glimmer of hope in the midst of all the strife. i think that the reason we're seeing such polarization is because we're living in a time when there's so much change on the horizon. the reason gay marriage has become such a huge issue is because a shift in attitudes and social acceptance is coming and is, to a large extent, already here. and those who oppose such changes--namely, those in power--become reactionary. this is why we're seeing so many states amend their constitutions solely to illegalize gay marriage, even though gay marriage was already illegal in those states. it's a preemptive strike, but these laws would not have been passed if lawmakers hadn't seen a change coming and been scared of that change.
and the change is us. it's our generation, and the generation after us. social attitudes don't have a habit of changing quickly, and when revolution comes it tends not to be quiet. some revolutions are fought with guns and bombs. this one is being fought with fear and ignorance, and a dying generation's inability to accept difference.
so for now, we wait and we fight the best we know how, but we know that time is on our side. change can be delayed, it can be deferred, but it cannot be stopped, and one day soon the revolution they fear will be upon us. peace.
"the greatest americans
have not been born yet
they are waiting patiently
for the past to die"
--saul williams
Post a Comment