I ask that you permit me to once more move away from an entirely religious theme and share something that has been on my mind for a while. I am fascinated by politics and observing human behavior, and while this entry is more “political” than you may expect to find here at Soulscape, I promise to get back into spiritual and scriptural discussions next time.
As many municipalities have done in recent months and years, my hometown’s city commissioners voted to enact a smoking ban in all public places, such as restaurants, offices, anywhere people gather. As an asthmatic and the father of an asthma-stricken child, I support this decision and look forward to enjoying an evening out without the haze and effects of cigarette smoke. Others, though, do not share my enthusiasm for the coming of October and the beginning of the ban.
What is truly worthy of note here (from a sociological perspective) is the great divide which has expanded and further pushed people apart. Each day leading up to the commission vote, I looked forward to perusing the “Letters to the Editor” in the local paper, certain I would find letters from both sides of the issue, most letters containing vicious attacks toward the other side.
Reading the abundance of letters, conversing with friends from “both sides of the aisle,” I was astounded by how deeply the issue ran. At the extremes, there were two sides: 1) smoking is an evil which is killing innocent people; and 2) this is a fundamental threat to civil liberties and personal choice.
Is it just me, or has this argument left the level of sanity and dipped its toes in the pool of the absurd? I used this story as only one example, but there are today countless examples where we see the same principles in action: Democrat versus Republican, pro- and anti-war, Leno or Letterman, stereotypical cavemen as compared to the ones in those annoying Geico commercials.
The arguments which are being witnessed today are no longer about what’s best for the community or the nation. They are no longer about open discussion and dialogue from opposing viewpoints, with decisions based on understanding. Everything seems to take on the characteristics of a fight instead of a debate. The prevailing attitude is, “We’re right, the other side is wrong and evil, and if you don’t take my view, you’re disgracing the common good.”
From my perspective, it seems that this country (and on a broader scope, the entire world) is imposing some kind of self-segregation. Though not as much focused on race as they once were, other things have filled the gap and have served to separate and isolate us from one another.
I’ve heard, and even been accused myself, that those in favor of the smoking-ban ordinance or various conservative causes are attempting to usurp the constitutional rights of those who disagree with us. We are accused of lacking compassion, of being narrow-minded or bigoted in our beliefs. Unfortunately, some of the more radical on our side of the aisle say the same things about those saying those things against us. And thus the cycle continues.
As far as the smoking ordinance, there is absolutely no doubt that smoking is an individual choice; there is no gene that predisposes a newborn to grow up into a smoker. There are arguments that certain behaviors, lifestyles or characteristics affect no one but the individual, and while I will keep my opinions on some of these to myself (in the interests of time as well as the overall focus of this entry), smoking does affect other people. As I mentioned at the onset, there were always people from both sides saying there were and were not facts on the issue. It became less about health than it did personal freedom. And it became less about personal freedom than it did keeping up the argument and the fighting.
We live in the greatest country on earth, heirs to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But as the years go by, there is more of a push to legalize, condone or endorse certain behaviors and practices which are harmful (in many different ways), all in the name of “preserving personal liberty.”
But whether you agree or not, whether you believe in Jesus Christ as your Savior or even if you don’t believe in any God at all, whether you believe this country was founded on Christian principles, any free society must hold to certain moral absolutes. The horizons have been, and continue to be, blurred, the lines of decency and right have been skewed. But in order to succeed, the changes must occur slowly. And it is not one group or one party that is responsible. All of us are responsible.
I remember an old story about a frog and boiling water. Drop the frog in a pot of boiling water, and it will jump out. Place the same frog in cool water and slowly increase the temperature in the pot, and the frog will stay and die. We do live in the land of the free, but that freedom must have boundaries.
Let’s say I have no problem with kidnapping and murder. For discussion’s sake, let us say that I wish to engage in such behavior. For anyone, the government, religion or anyone else to condemn me is to step on my personal freedoms, and infringes on my basic human and American rights. Now, that’s just plain absurd. There are rights and there are wrongs, and there’s nothing we can do about it. Murder is wrong no matter how you justify it; it always has been and it always will be.
I do not agree with much of what is taking place in this country and in this world. I am not one to blindly vote party, no matter what my affiliation might be. I look at the important issues, and vote for the person who I feel would best meet the needs of the people in an honorable and moral way, regardless of party. I understand that in today’s world religion and politics are often at odds, and while this is sometimes frustrating I am glad we live in a country such as this.
When it comes down to it, any activity that truly can harm those around you is no longer a question of personal liberty. It is about doing what is morally right. For those who raise such clamor over the Pledge of Allegiance, prayer in schools, the separation of church and state, of what and whose moral standard to use, I would say the following:
Saying the words, “one nation, under God,” praying before a ball game or graduation, and public officials serving the people in a room with the Ten Commandments on the wall, these things do no real harm to anyone. You do not have to participate, you don’t have to listen, you don’t have to agree. I am a pastor, a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and I will tell you of my faith and your need of a Savior. But I will not force you to accept my faith. Again, my decision doesn’t harm you.
To use the original example once more to illustrate my overall point, to those who protest so loudly, “Respect the rights of smokers!” I would simply say this, “Respect the rights of those who don’t.” If you choose to engage in harmful behavior, that is your decision, and you must own the consequences. It is not for me to tell you that you can’t do those things that are within the moral and civil law. I can offer God’s Word, and advise you to look to the Lord for guidance, and tell you my beliefs, but I do ask for respect and understanding, the same respect and understanding you yourself seek from me.
The only way to begin healing the rifts in our homes, communities and our nation, is to engage in debate, not argument. We must respect one another and look to the common good. There are absolutes, no matter how we try to avoid them. Let us look beyond the moment, let us look past personalities and stop taking things personally.
One of the closest friends I have in this world could not be more different than me in many areas that divide our country and world. But we are very much alike, and have never let our differences stand in the way of our friendship. We share, we discuss, and we go on. My desire is to see the country I love so much adopt a similar attitude.
While I may be able to get a fresher breath of air after October 1st, I think the true breath of fresh air we all need is to examine ourselves, put our animosity aside, and allow mutual compassion and respect be our guides.
© 2006, Chris Keeton and Soulscape Press. All rights reserved. All material printed on this site is protected by the copyright law of the United States. It may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of Chris Keeton and Soulscape Press, obtainable by writing to soulscape@alltel.net. Altering or removing any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content is not permitted. Any and all portions of material copied from the Soulscape Blog must be properly attributed to Chris Keeton and Soulscape, and cited with original blog web address.
As many municipalities have done in recent months and years, my hometown’s city commissioners voted to enact a smoking ban in all public places, such as restaurants, offices, anywhere people gather. As an asthmatic and the father of an asthma-stricken child, I support this decision and look forward to enjoying an evening out without the haze and effects of cigarette smoke. Others, though, do not share my enthusiasm for the coming of October and the beginning of the ban.
What is truly worthy of note here (from a sociological perspective) is the great divide which has expanded and further pushed people apart. Each day leading up to the commission vote, I looked forward to perusing the “Letters to the Editor” in the local paper, certain I would find letters from both sides of the issue, most letters containing vicious attacks toward the other side.
“Studies have shown that second-hand smoke contains many harmful chemicals, and those exposed to second-hand smoke are being subjected to dangerous health conditions.”
“There have been no studies which indicate second-hand smoke is dangerous at all. The air in homes and on the highways is more deadly. No facts exist which prove any danger at all to non-smokers.”
“This ordinance is being enacted to protect the health of everyone in the community.”
“This ordinance serves no other purpose than to destroy the rights of smokers.”
Reading the abundance of letters, conversing with friends from “both sides of the aisle,” I was astounded by how deeply the issue ran. At the extremes, there were two sides: 1) smoking is an evil which is killing innocent people; and 2) this is a fundamental threat to civil liberties and personal choice.
Is it just me, or has this argument left the level of sanity and dipped its toes in the pool of the absurd? I used this story as only one example, but there are today countless examples where we see the same principles in action: Democrat versus Republican, pro- and anti-war, Leno or Letterman, stereotypical cavemen as compared to the ones in those annoying Geico commercials.
The arguments which are being witnessed today are no longer about what’s best for the community or the nation. They are no longer about open discussion and dialogue from opposing viewpoints, with decisions based on understanding. Everything seems to take on the characteristics of a fight instead of a debate. The prevailing attitude is, “We’re right, the other side is wrong and evil, and if you don’t take my view, you’re disgracing the common good.”
From my perspective, it seems that this country (and on a broader scope, the entire world) is imposing some kind of self-segregation. Though not as much focused on race as they once were, other things have filled the gap and have served to separate and isolate us from one another.
I’ve heard, and even been accused myself, that those in favor of the smoking-ban ordinance or various conservative causes are attempting to usurp the constitutional rights of those who disagree with us. We are accused of lacking compassion, of being narrow-minded or bigoted in our beliefs. Unfortunately, some of the more radical on our side of the aisle say the same things about those saying those things against us. And thus the cycle continues.
As far as the smoking ordinance, there is absolutely no doubt that smoking is an individual choice; there is no gene that predisposes a newborn to grow up into a smoker. There are arguments that certain behaviors, lifestyles or characteristics affect no one but the individual, and while I will keep my opinions on some of these to myself (in the interests of time as well as the overall focus of this entry), smoking does affect other people. As I mentioned at the onset, there were always people from both sides saying there were and were not facts on the issue. It became less about health than it did personal freedom. And it became less about personal freedom than it did keeping up the argument and the fighting.
We live in the greatest country on earth, heirs to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But as the years go by, there is more of a push to legalize, condone or endorse certain behaviors and practices which are harmful (in many different ways), all in the name of “preserving personal liberty.”
But whether you agree or not, whether you believe in Jesus Christ as your Savior or even if you don’t believe in any God at all, whether you believe this country was founded on Christian principles, any free society must hold to certain moral absolutes. The horizons have been, and continue to be, blurred, the lines of decency and right have been skewed. But in order to succeed, the changes must occur slowly. And it is not one group or one party that is responsible. All of us are responsible.
I remember an old story about a frog and boiling water. Drop the frog in a pot of boiling water, and it will jump out. Place the same frog in cool water and slowly increase the temperature in the pot, and the frog will stay and die. We do live in the land of the free, but that freedom must have boundaries.
Let’s say I have no problem with kidnapping and murder. For discussion’s sake, let us say that I wish to engage in such behavior. For anyone, the government, religion or anyone else to condemn me is to step on my personal freedoms, and infringes on my basic human and American rights. Now, that’s just plain absurd. There are rights and there are wrongs, and there’s nothing we can do about it. Murder is wrong no matter how you justify it; it always has been and it always will be.
I do not agree with much of what is taking place in this country and in this world. I am not one to blindly vote party, no matter what my affiliation might be. I look at the important issues, and vote for the person who I feel would best meet the needs of the people in an honorable and moral way, regardless of party. I understand that in today’s world religion and politics are often at odds, and while this is sometimes frustrating I am glad we live in a country such as this.
When it comes down to it, any activity that truly can harm those around you is no longer a question of personal liberty. It is about doing what is morally right. For those who raise such clamor over the Pledge of Allegiance, prayer in schools, the separation of church and state, of what and whose moral standard to use, I would say the following:
Saying the words, “one nation, under God,” praying before a ball game or graduation, and public officials serving the people in a room with the Ten Commandments on the wall, these things do no real harm to anyone. You do not have to participate, you don’t have to listen, you don’t have to agree. I am a pastor, a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and I will tell you of my faith and your need of a Savior. But I will not force you to accept my faith. Again, my decision doesn’t harm you.
To use the original example once more to illustrate my overall point, to those who protest so loudly, “Respect the rights of smokers!” I would simply say this, “Respect the rights of those who don’t.” If you choose to engage in harmful behavior, that is your decision, and you must own the consequences. It is not for me to tell you that you can’t do those things that are within the moral and civil law. I can offer God’s Word, and advise you to look to the Lord for guidance, and tell you my beliefs, but I do ask for respect and understanding, the same respect and understanding you yourself seek from me.
The only way to begin healing the rifts in our homes, communities and our nation, is to engage in debate, not argument. We must respect one another and look to the common good. There are absolutes, no matter how we try to avoid them. Let us look beyond the moment, let us look past personalities and stop taking things personally.
One of the closest friends I have in this world could not be more different than me in many areas that divide our country and world. But we are very much alike, and have never let our differences stand in the way of our friendship. We share, we discuss, and we go on. My desire is to see the country I love so much adopt a similar attitude.
While I may be able to get a fresher breath of air after October 1st, I think the true breath of fresh air we all need is to examine ourselves, put our animosity aside, and allow mutual compassion and respect be our guides.
© 2006, Chris Keeton and Soulscape Press. All rights reserved. All material printed on this site is protected by the copyright law of the United States. It may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of Chris Keeton and Soulscape Press, obtainable by writing to soulscape@alltel.net. Altering or removing any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content is not permitted. Any and all portions of material copied from the Soulscape Blog must be properly attributed to Chris Keeton and Soulscape, and cited with original blog web address.
No comments:
Post a Comment