So, according to Todd Akin, women’s bodies have their own anti-pregnancy defense-mechanism in cases of real rape, i.e., ‘legitimate rape,’ or something to that effect. Uh, but wait, he’s apologized for that statement. Says he misspoke. But the damage is done and now his own party wants him to stand down and resign.
Akin’s comment was ridiculous. Did he really mean what he said? At the time he said those infamous words about ‘legitimate rape,’ he seemed to truly believe that he was speaking truth. And, apology or not, something was revealed in his thinking. Ergo, what we think, what we believe to be true, what we assume is right, what we take as real and factual, all has a direct impact on our actions, choices, attitudes, and behavior, and thereby impacts others as well; for we are all interconnected.
This creates a huge challenge for a diverse, democratic, and pluralistic society such as ours. How do we make good laws, if we can’t even agree on the moral foundations or principles upon which these laws should be based?
What is right and good, the best way to live? What is wrong and bad, the worst way to live? And how does one distinguish between the two? What is the measure of good and right action? Why, for example, does everyone agree in our society that rape is a very bad thing, while we are not at all in agreement that abortion is a very bad thing?
Is morality only culturally relative, simply a matter of personal choice, tied to a particular person, place, and time? Or is morality absolute and universal, to be applied in the same way, in the same manner, to everyone, everywhere, regardless of place, time, and person? Or is it a mixture of both: universal truths applied relatively, tailored to specific time periods and particular cases, places, and people?
Deciding whether one’s action is moral and just, is not always as easy as we’d like to think. When it comes to questions of morality and justice, as in so many other areas of life, simplistic—one size fits all—answers, seldom do justice. This is why we need law courts and judges, is it not? What we need is sound wisdom, insightful discernment, and good judgment—the capacity to discern and make right decisions in the face of conflicting choices or opposing sides. (Which begs the question, for what do we accept as the basis of sound, wise, and insightful discernment these days?)
This is why perhaps the tendency on both the far left and the far right is to seek authoritative power to become master over their opponents by legislative rule. That is, rather than seeking good sound-judgment and wise insightful-discernment on many conflicting issues, our present political approach is to polarize and vote for black-and-white authoritarian laws that strike down the individual and particular freedoms of all opposing perspectives and alternative viewpoints—e.g., ban all abortions of any kind, for whatever reason, whatever the cause, outcome, or means. Or, ban all handheld guns, everywhere, anywhere, for whomever, whatever the need or reason one wanted such a gun.
Opposing sides take godlike positions. The atheist, rationalist, agnostic unbeliever wants unyielding authoritative laws to protect his/her godlike status in being able to command his/her own life as he/she sees fit. Meanwhile, the devout religious believer, asserts his/her particular faith, his or her particular understanding and interpretation of God, as THE quintessential True Faith, and speaks as one who speaks for God, with Godlike authority—to whom all are expected to obey and submit. (I know, for I believe that Jesus is the Messiah, Lord and Savior of all humanity, and believe that you also should receive Him and submit to His Lordship in your life as well. However, I also believe that it must be a free choice. That is, you must not ever be forced to become a Christian against your will, nor should you be forced to submit to the dictates of Christian teachings against your will.)
Still, we all believe in morality. We wouldn’t have laws against rape, robbery, and murder, if we didn’t. But where then do we draw the line between our differences? Why do some believe that abortion is not murder, while others of us do believe very much that it is the taking of precious life? We are not going to get anywhere by simply trying to outmaneuver one another at the voting booth. A 51% vote in our favor is not going to end the argument, battle, or disagreement as to who is right and who is wrong. We need to have a serious discussion about our rationale, our beliefs, and about the basis of our moral understandings. And then we have to find some way to respect our differences, live with our disagreements, while still maintaining integrity with our own convictions—and still remain a united nation.
No comments:
Post a Comment