PUBLIC DISPLAY OF RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES
The specific issue in the news today is regarding whether or not to display the 10 commandments in our governmental buildings or any religious doctrine in a public place. One has to be honest about what one wants it to accomplish to determine whether or not it is helpful and also necessary.
Here is a simple example. The love we have in our minds and hearts for our children cannot be shown or displayed to anyone else. A picture of them is but a suggestion to others that we love them. Yet, a child molester could just as easily plaster pictures of their ‘beloved’ one all over their office. My point is obvious. The display itself is really meaningless; it is in the reason behind the public display and the meaning that we as observers give to it, that is really the issue here. Beauty is not the only thing that is in the eye of the beholder! All meaning is in it.
As far as the intention behind the display; do those who are adamant about having the 10 Commandments very visible and other such things need to ‘see to believe’? Or maybe they feel the need to show others that they believe? If a person is truly spiritual, they realize that the love of God is written on the hearts of each person; whether or not it is written on some wall somewhere else just doesn’t matter. Those who fight to have religious pictures or sayings in public places need to think about the purpose they are hoping to have it serve.
On the other hand, if the purpose is honestly to remind us of our historical religious background as a nation and it is thus perceived by onlookers as such, then let it be in that spirit that it is displayed, along with other historical documents with or without religious connotations. If they were part of what helped to form the U.S. Constitution, they should be equally displayed.
And those against doing this should honestly examine what it is that offends them about it. Is it offensive to them to represent and display what formed our founding father’s ideas on what an ideal society should be? Keeping in mind, the 10 commandments were an integral part of our founding father’s ideologies but also that our spiritual/religious views are changing and growing, as we as a nation, change and grow with more spiritual understanding and new insights from other paths, which may also some day be up for discussion as to whether or not to publicly display them.
AN ANALOGY
Maybe it would help to look at the government as the company for which you are employed. Your employer might display the original owner’s family picture on the wall who happen to be Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist (you name it) and are wearing some token of one of those beliefs in the photograph or painting. Do we get upset and think “But those are not my kids, nor my beliefs! This means this company is against my kids, and me. I can’t work here, or they have to take those down.”
All those photographs mean is that those people founded the company you work for and that is their photograph. Nothing more and nothing less. It means they are honoring the founding father’s of your employer who is giving you the ability to make a living on a daily basis. One could hardly be angry or object to their right and their desire to place a picture, or maybe even a pledge by them, to you, as an employee or a pledge to uphold the moral standards of their personal belief system in all endeavors.
The point being, there is no wrong or right in regards to the public display of things of a personal or spiritual nature. There is only the balanced or imbalanced interpretation that we give these displays that make the problem. In these interpretations, we see our fears and prejudices. Fear that someone can take away what is forever etched within our hearts. Fear that if it is not displayed for all to see, it doesn’t exist and doesn’t hold true for us. If we are Buddhist in this country, do we feel offended by pictures of Jesus? If we are Christian, should we feel offended by one who wishes to honor Buddha? Both are rightly part of our society and one cannot threaten nor demean the other.
Personally, the whole argument helped me to see that I do hope there is a day when we welcome the representation of all religions in public places, keeping in mind that to honor a religion is not the same as enforcing it. But rather as a show of gratitude for how they helped to build our society in various ways and perhaps at differing stages of our evolution. Although Christianity was our founding father’s religion, it is not the same Christianity that today is unfolding. Today we are learning that all the great religions say the same thing and so to honor one above the other is meaningless. I hope for a day when we don’t feel threatened or in any way bothered by the presence nor the absence of the display of our society’s spiritual paths, knowing that it is in our hearts and minds that we represent them, not in the things we choose to represent them anyway!
So, the only real thing we need to be bothered about in this on going American issue, is our own intentions in the need for display, not the display. We give meaning to what we are viewing. It cannot be the other way around.
Diane L. Perretto
Monday, June 27, 2005
Saturday, June 25, 2005
The Silly Moral War
Read at your own risk. If you have high blood pressure, or are a staunch conservative or passionate liberal, push delete immediately. If you are tough, open minded, and love a good debate from both sides, and of course, care about the subject of our country's divided mind set...read on.
“Rove, the architect behind President Bush's election victories, on Wednesday night told a gathering of the New York Conservative Party that "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he said, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war." Yahoo News
THE COMMENT
And Democrats are supposed to be offended by this comment? Is it not a good thing that a group actually wanted to think first, before declaring war? I think it is a bit of an exaggeration and a generalization to say that any group thought one thing, and one thing only. Republican or Democrat. To say Democrats wanted only to understand our attackers is just silly. After all, none of them are Jesus yet and if they could only feel that way, they'd all be Jesus! Would that be a bad thing? Is war the thing he would think first and foremost? If your answer is 'I don't necessarily want to follow his lead'....I guess the point is lost on you, but perhaps there are other good reasons to not think that way? Ghandi, for example?
THE MORALITY WAR
But more to the point of my point....this ridiculous morality fight between Democratics and the Republicans is a war in itself that will divide and destroy this country if we are not careful. We need to see past the labels once and for all. Both sides are equally 'righteous' in their attacks on each other. Our country loses in the end due to the discord it causes in the House and Senate and in our own world.
To pit one group against another in an attempt to make one seem more moral is unbelievably childish; it’s first grade stuff. We are all guilty of doing it sometimes, but these people are running our country; they represent us to the world. I am beginning to be concerned. Ok, I've been concerned for a while! Dean does it, Rove does it....they are all beginning to sound like kids in a sandbox and it seems to be escalating lately. I would comment on Dean's comments about Republicans, but I lost the fervor of the moment since it was a while back. Maybe he'll be quiet for a while now....we all hope.
Back to Rove. He said the Republicans reacted to savagery with preparation for war, as though that were the 'moral, right thing to do' ...that is funny to me, in a sick way.
Our reactions to savagery do not define our morality. Our reactions to savagery define a reaction to our human condition; vulnerability to emotional and physical attack by others.
In truth, we all felt vulnerable, and we all felt scared. But there was a myraid of feelings that day and since that day for all of us. Some of us, Republican and Democrat, did want to understand the minds of those who blindly, randomly kill, and realized perhaps rather abruptly that day in September, that we must begin to meet half way in some areas with different cultures and figure out a way to live together on the same planet, harmoniously, with varying beliefs and ways. And I don't think Democrats hold the ticket to peace and open mindedness...or the Republicans. To think one does is just plain silly. I like the word silly I guess.
And please don't yell back with your hands on your hips "But they don't try to understand us, so why should we?! They hit us first!!"
FIGHTING THE BULLY
Punching the bully on the playground may make sure he doesn't bother you again (til he forgets about it, with his short attention span (did I say that?) but it does not fix his mindset, and it surely doesn't mean he won't bother someone else as soon as you look the other way. And 'someone else' DOES matter, in a global economy and world. So, we protect ourselves from his punch, and be clever and kind in our dealings with him to help him to change and grow with the relationship you both are now defining. And we can afford to define it in our way when we are protecting ourselves from harm while doing it. In other words... you can't bully a bully! It's just silly. (that word again!) Both sides win when neither has a motive to fight. Don't give him a chance, or motive.
To do this, is not to condone bad behavior as Rove suggests. It is to understand it. Be able to work with it so no one feels they have lost. We can better defend, and better make peace with a real understanding of other's beliefs, their passion and even specifics about their religion while protecting ourselves from infiltration of terrorists.
EDUCATING OUR KIDS
In the U.S. the Muslim religion, or really any other religion is never talked about or taught to our young children so most of them have absolutely no idea what a Muslim is. This means they are unable or most likely unwilling to understand that to say 'all Muslims believe in violence' is as silly as saying all Christians blow up Abortion clinics and all Italians are Murdering Mobsters. This is a big mistake on the U.S. educational system's behalf.
To teach is not to condone or agree with what you are learning. It is to educate and broaden minds about all facets of life. And it might just give a child the knowledge, patience, kindness, tolerance, and intelligence to see beyond one's religious beliefs and see a human being.
But tolerance, understanding and using the power of knowledge does not mean we don’t also want to feel protected while we are moving in the direction of those pursuits, knowing it may take hundreds of years of effort, but must be begun at one time or another.
WAR OR NOT
Protection, yes…in the form of defense. Offensive war, maybe. But not the knee jerk reaction of ‘war for sure' that Rove suggests the Republicans felt. Maybe I am not in touch with the average Conservative thoughts today, but I doubt most wanted war immediately and might have also had thoughts wanting to understand the basis for their attack, while at the same time, feeling a need to protect our soil. Protect, not offensively attack immediately, or perhaps, ever.
THE BIGGEST MYSTERY
What I have trouble really understanding, almost as much as how or why people kill and go to war …is how on earth people like Rove, or Howard Dean, with ignorant and childish comments, ever got into the positions they hold!
Diane L. Perretto
“Rove, the architect behind President Bush's election victories, on Wednesday night told a gathering of the New York Conservative Party that "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he said, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war." Yahoo News
THE COMMENT
And Democrats are supposed to be offended by this comment? Is it not a good thing that a group actually wanted to think first, before declaring war? I think it is a bit of an exaggeration and a generalization to say that any group thought one thing, and one thing only. Republican or Democrat. To say Democrats wanted only to understand our attackers is just silly. After all, none of them are Jesus yet and if they could only feel that way, they'd all be Jesus! Would that be a bad thing? Is war the thing he would think first and foremost? If your answer is 'I don't necessarily want to follow his lead'....I guess the point is lost on you, but perhaps there are other good reasons to not think that way? Ghandi, for example?
THE MORALITY WAR
But more to the point of my point....this ridiculous morality fight between Democratics and the Republicans is a war in itself that will divide and destroy this country if we are not careful. We need to see past the labels once and for all. Both sides are equally 'righteous' in their attacks on each other. Our country loses in the end due to the discord it causes in the House and Senate and in our own world.
To pit one group against another in an attempt to make one seem more moral is unbelievably childish; it’s first grade stuff. We are all guilty of doing it sometimes, but these people are running our country; they represent us to the world. I am beginning to be concerned. Ok, I've been concerned for a while! Dean does it, Rove does it....they are all beginning to sound like kids in a sandbox and it seems to be escalating lately. I would comment on Dean's comments about Republicans, but I lost the fervor of the moment since it was a while back. Maybe he'll be quiet for a while now....we all hope.
Back to Rove. He said the Republicans reacted to savagery with preparation for war, as though that were the 'moral, right thing to do' ...that is funny to me, in a sick way.
Our reactions to savagery do not define our morality. Our reactions to savagery define a reaction to our human condition; vulnerability to emotional and physical attack by others.
In truth, we all felt vulnerable, and we all felt scared. But there was a myraid of feelings that day and since that day for all of us. Some of us, Republican and Democrat, did want to understand the minds of those who blindly, randomly kill, and realized perhaps rather abruptly that day in September, that we must begin to meet half way in some areas with different cultures and figure out a way to live together on the same planet, harmoniously, with varying beliefs and ways. And I don't think Democrats hold the ticket to peace and open mindedness...or the Republicans. To think one does is just plain silly. I like the word silly I guess.
And please don't yell back with your hands on your hips "But they don't try to understand us, so why should we?! They hit us first!!"
FIGHTING THE BULLY
Punching the bully on the playground may make sure he doesn't bother you again (til he forgets about it, with his short attention span (did I say that?) but it does not fix his mindset, and it surely doesn't mean he won't bother someone else as soon as you look the other way. And 'someone else' DOES matter, in a global economy and world. So, we protect ourselves from his punch, and be clever and kind in our dealings with him to help him to change and grow with the relationship you both are now defining. And we can afford to define it in our way when we are protecting ourselves from harm while doing it. In other words... you can't bully a bully! It's just silly. (that word again!) Both sides win when neither has a motive to fight. Don't give him a chance, or motive.
To do this, is not to condone bad behavior as Rove suggests. It is to understand it. Be able to work with it so no one feels they have lost. We can better defend, and better make peace with a real understanding of other's beliefs, their passion and even specifics about their religion while protecting ourselves from infiltration of terrorists.
EDUCATING OUR KIDS
In the U.S. the Muslim religion, or really any other religion is never talked about or taught to our young children so most of them have absolutely no idea what a Muslim is. This means they are unable or most likely unwilling to understand that to say 'all Muslims believe in violence' is as silly as saying all Christians blow up Abortion clinics and all Italians are Murdering Mobsters. This is a big mistake on the U.S. educational system's behalf.
To teach is not to condone or agree with what you are learning. It is to educate and broaden minds about all facets of life. And it might just give a child the knowledge, patience, kindness, tolerance, and intelligence to see beyond one's religious beliefs and see a human being.
But tolerance, understanding and using the power of knowledge does not mean we don’t also want to feel protected while we are moving in the direction of those pursuits, knowing it may take hundreds of years of effort, but must be begun at one time or another.
WAR OR NOT
Protection, yes…in the form of defense. Offensive war, maybe. But not the knee jerk reaction of ‘war for sure' that Rove suggests the Republicans felt. Maybe I am not in touch with the average Conservative thoughts today, but I doubt most wanted war immediately and might have also had thoughts wanting to understand the basis for their attack, while at the same time, feeling a need to protect our soil. Protect, not offensively attack immediately, or perhaps, ever.
THE BIGGEST MYSTERY
What I have trouble really understanding, almost as much as how or why people kill and go to war …is how on earth people like Rove, or Howard Dean, with ignorant and childish comments, ever got into the positions they hold!
Diane L. Perretto
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)