I've been wondering how to make sense of the whole "right vs. wrong" thing. I know the cool thing to do is to act all post-modern, like you can't "judge" someone or tell them what's right. It's cool to think that there is no ultimate Truth, and that we're all here to figure out our own places in the world. But most of you out there know that I'm an old school modernist, and I believe that we live in a world of rights and wrongs. But my question is this: how does someone like me live in a world and see "wrongs" and be non-judgmental? Is it even possible? Can any of us truly be non-judgmental? I don't know.
For me, this relates to ideas that many of you would never think of judging. For instance, gay marriage. My views on gay marriage have definitely changed in the past few years, and at this point, I don't really have an objection to it in the government sense. But for me, that's because marriage is a religious institution, and the Catholic Church is very clear about the rules. Maybe I get to hide behind the Church on this one, I don't know. But it doesn't change the fact that I believe that gay marriage has no place within the Church. Is that judging? Or can I say, "I don't agree with your actions, but you have every right to do what you want". Is that being apathetic and bowing out of the conversation? I wonder if telling people that they can do whatever they want is our way of just shirking our responsibilities. We no longer have to worry about it. We can sit up on our high horse and tell others that we're "postmodern" and that we believe in peoples' right to run their own lives.
But are we neglecting (and dumping on, in a sense) the Truth by doing this? What if this happened in every aspect of society? "Hey, I don't personally believe in beating my wife, but who am I to say you can't?!" or "Your rage is completely understandable. I can really see why you shook your baby until it was limp." See what I mean? What can we stand up for? Think about the things you oppose... in a sense, doesn't this make you "modern" too? You believe that there is a RIGHT and a WRONG. I don't understand where this has led us... If we have a duty for the big things, don't we have a duty for the small? Or do we just have to wait and let society tell us what its okay to be against? (At one point, both previous examples were completely legal and mainstream).
It feels like we've lost our moral compass. If you stand up for what you believe in, you're a bigot. The poison of our times is apathy, and I think that we all suffer from it to some extent. Its much easier to bury our heads in the stand and either embrace the mainstream views or to just not fight against them. I, for one, am tired of not being able to take a stand on things that matter.
Where is John Galt?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
If one believes as I do that the sole purpose of laws and government is (well, okay, "should be") to protect an individual's right to their life, liberty, and property, then it is correct to say "I don't agree with your beliefs/actions but do whatever you want" - as long as it doesn't take away anyone else's rights. So in that sense, gay marriage is acceptable (in a legal, sectarian sense), but a line can be drawn. The other examples are morally and legally wrong because they are taking away the rights of the wife and baby.
Also I am going to read something by Ayn Rand this summer. Is Atlas the only one you've read so far?
Sarah :)
Yeah, Ayn Rand is awesome! I've read her three novels... and Atlas was my fave by FAR... the fountainhead was also good though :)
This is really deep Brandy. Too deep for me at this point in the evening but it is a great post. Oh the great stuff you get to teach Kate. We are so glad you are her godmother!
By the way, it's Amanda not Michael (he was already logged in).
Okay, so, my turn to weigh in. Here's the thing about Truth...it has a counterpart that must be used to be effective--Grace. Without Grace, Truth becomes a way to isolate yourself. What you are wrestling with is this point exactly. You raised the concern that if you tell the Truth you are seen as a bigot. Grace prevents this. You must explain Truth while understanding others are not there and may never join you there...Grace must be extended at all times.
Since you brought up the Church, I will use a related comparison--Jesus. Regardless of where everyone stands in terms of believing Jesus doesn't matter in terms of Truth and Grace. He obviously stood for Truth, but he did not leave out Grace. He loved people where they were, spent time with them, and showed them an alternative way of thinking. He condemned the religious leaders by claiming them to be fine, white washed tombs...pretty on the outside, but dead on the inside. They preached laws...not relationships. Jesus' point is not an easy one, as you know being a therapist. It is easier to condemn based on your beliefs and laws than it is to love, live amongst, and show Truth.
Anyway, a few thoughts...plenty more, but don't want to respond with a novel!
--actually michael this time
grace! you hit it exactly. that's what i was missing. i couldn't wrap my head around it, but that really makes a lot more sense. without that, you only have the rules, which is off-putting. and i think people choose not to see the grace sometimes, which can make it look like you are a bigot... so maybe the grace needs to be set as the goal, to be seen before the opinions or the truth sometimes. deep!
and thanks amanda, i can't wait to have these talks with kate too... while we're standing in line for rides at disneyland or something :)
Post a Comment