Ok so I admit it – last week’s contribution to AI October didn’t actually have anything to do with Artificial Intelligence at all. The prospect of humanity accidentally making itself redundant is still a pretty worrying concept, but since we as a species always seem to be working busily on new ways to wipe ourselves out, it’s not so much a problem of technology as it is a problem of the human condition.
True artificial intelligence on the other hand, is a very different kettle of fish. Let’s be clear here; when we say artificial intelligence we’re not just talking about a sophisticated machine that can fake being alive. Our rapidly advancing technology has developed machines that can walk and talk (moderately) convincingly, can gather information and make decision, but these are all reactive skills – no more intelligent or alive than a wheel’s ability to roll when pointed down…
During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. The Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after eight hundred years, gathered up its halters, thumb-screws, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood. Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry…..There are no witches. The witch text remains; only the practice has changed. Hell fire is gone, but the text remains. Infant damnation is gone, but the text remains. More than two hundred death penalties are gone from the law books, but the texts that authorized them remain. – “Bible Teaching and Religious Practice,” Europe and Elsewhere
I’ve used this quote often in debating and discussing religion with people. And I’d like to pose the question, why can’t we edit the Bible? Now of course I have a general problem with any book that is 2000 years old being a meaningful guide about how to live life now, but get to know any Christian and you’ll find that the amount of principles in the Bible they actually live by are a small portion of them. More importantly, the Bible is filled with so many contradictory verses that people can literally pick and choose the bible-based philosophy that suits them. Of course if we are going to edit the Bible who gets to decide what goes in and what goes out? Perhaps a committee should be formed. It doesn’t seem like that should be too hard to do considering that is how the Bible was originally formed about half millennia after Jesus Christ was supposed to have lived.
Now we all know that there are some really great Christian people out there. And these great Christian people would like you to know:
We support gay people
We support evolution
We support science
We support education
We would rather avoid war
We know the Bible isn’t meant to be taken literally
We think helping those that are less fortunate is important
We know it’s our belief and we don’t need proselytize
While we might not choose to have abortions ourselves we support a woman’s right to choose
We think birth control is an important part of health care
We think separation of church and state is important
We are comfortable with other people’s religious beliefs even if we don’t agree
We think taking care of the Earth is part of our responsibility as God’s children
We live our life as close to being like Jesus as possible
Let’s face it, such Christians are great. They are enjoyable people to be around. They don’t like those other extreme groups that call themselves Christians, but clearly aren’t. All their fire and brimstone talk, their eye for an eye mentality, their inability to adapt to the times, their wanting to pass laws that are prejudicial and not pluralistic. They would also like you to know that though there were dark times in Christianities past, those people were not the true Christians. No matter how mainstream it was. Good Christian congregations existed even in the darkest of times and those are the people that truly understood the Bible. And by the way, the Bible has so many positive verses in it. Things about loving your neighbors, not judging others, helping the poor, being compassionate, loving your family. The list goes on.
So this is brilliant. Such Christians truly help to make the world a better place and if there are right about it all, then we probably should have paid more attention to these models of morality. I’m not being sarcastic in the least. However….
We have to ask ourselves then, where did these less than savory Christians come from? Who are these people who are divisive and judgmental? Who are these people that would rather force their religious beliefs down our throats rather than allow us to exercise the free will that God so desperately wanted us to have so we could choose to love Him? Why do they so pedantically want to take a book that is supposed to be word of God literally. Why do they insist on taking some verses that are prejudicial and hateful instead of verses that are peaceful, tolerant and compassionate? Why do they focus on instill fear instead of love? Why aren’t they turning the other cheek? Why aren’t they interpreting the Bible correctly?Why aren’t all Christians the good people they are supposed to be?
Well maybe it’s because they had bad teachers of their faith. Maybe it’s because they have low levels of education. Maybe it’s because their parents were judgmental, strict people who never gave their children the freedom to ask questions and really explore their faith. Maybe they grew up in an intolerant environment. And all these things are possible, but wouldn’t anybody turn out to be a rather less than good person in such an environment? And maybe the reason you are a good person is because you were raised in a good and loving environment and wouldn’t anybody turn out the same way regardless of their religion? And why should the word of God Himself, the perfection of perfection, the only omniscient presence in the universe depend so much on someone’s level of education, how they were raised? Why is it so easy to get it wrong and misinterpret it?
But what if there is a much more insidious possibility? What if those “bad” Christians actually think they are good Christians. What if they think Christians like you are the problem? What if they have as much biblical support for their way of thinking as you do for yours? What if there are actually more lines in the bible that promote violence, oppression of women, and persecution of non-Christians than ones that actually are against these behaviors? What if all those lines about there being witches and making slaves out of people are still in there even though we, as a society, no longer promote such ideas? (By the way witch accusations may be making a comeback!) What if they are ignoring just as many verses that disagree with their worldview, as you are ignoring to support your worldview?
The Christian bible has been translated from language after language, and is already different from the original due to the difficulties in translating the Bible. Many of the books of the Bible cannot be verified to have been written by the author that is claimed. The Bible is certainly not in the same form always and the books of the Bible have been put together well after Jesus’ death. So what would be so bad about editing the Bible. Because if there are people out there who are actually using bad parts of the bible and as a result are not good Christians, wouldn’t it be worth removing those parts? Wouldn’t it be worth including some extra stuff that wasn’t in the Bible because it was not known then, but it is known now? I mean if the word of God as described in the Bible is outdated and not even used by good Christians, why have it in there? Why no just leave it on the shelf in libraries so people can see what the Bible used to be like? Have it simply as a historical reference to what life was like 2000 years ago. Because it seems to me that the word of God is confusing a lot of people. So maybe it’s time to separate the wheat from chaff in the Bible so that God is a little more justified in separating the wheat from the chaff after we die. And if you are worried about the morality of editing an original historical work, then also consider the morality of leaving a whole lot of archaic and horrible practices in the Bible and selling it as the word of God. And if you are worried about where to start, George Carlin has risen from the dead to help you with a few suggestion on amending the 10 commandments.
Without an update, the Bible is really just a string of stories, laws, and lessons that range from violently psychopathic to ultra loving and compassionate in which we are all just picking and choosing the things we want to support the type of person we already are.
After running with long healthy strides,
Summer sighs and rests its weary bones,
Catching its breath and closing its eyes,
It thinks back on the life it has made, smiling,
And begins a journey of deep reflection,
In that quite moment, autumn is born.
That green, so pervasive and full of life,
Begins to give way to a symphony of colors,
And a clear night ends in a cool morning
Bringing us all relief from summer heat.
No surface is excluded from thick dew,
Lying under a blanket of slumbering fog,
Snaking its way through the valley,
Slow to wake and start its day in the rising sun,
And as the noon time sun shines brightly,
The skin no longer hides from that blazing orb,
The humid haze of summer has left,
The sky, a perfect blue, brings clarity of mind,
A feeling of nostalgia for carefree days,
A joy for the closeness of friends and family,
Inner warmth protects against shorter days.
Gentle summer breezes are replaced by brisk winds,
And waning leaves are forced from their homes,
To settle anew on the hardening soil below,
And the year begins to feel the consequence,
Of getting lost in sweet remembrances.
It must also account for the passage of time,
And see that less lies ahead than lies behind,
A bountiful harvest is full of summer’s heat,
Animals fill their bellies with old sunlight,
Saying their goodbyes as life withers on the ground,
And as the morning air hints at winters bite,
Fur is thickened and homes are secured,
Each ray of warm sunshine becomes a great gift,
Moments of laughter are appreciated more,
And wisdom and gratitude replace youthful vigor.
And in the longer night hours, silence sets in.
A light frost adheres to stubborn leaves,
Who cling to their branches, refusing to face,
The inevitability that all life must meet its end,
And that all we can do is hope we lived well,
So a better world begins in winter’s wake.
The ironic thing about living in this information age, with technology advancing at an unprecedented rate, is that there really haven’t been all that many truly new ethical problems to sort out yet. Sure the internethas created virtual worlds from scratch, and personal surveillance drones have suddenly made the jump from ‘science fiction’ to ‘$19.95 at Dick Smith’, but despite the new technical complications both of these basically boil down to the issue of privacy– something society has had a long debate about for hundreds of years. The emergence of global terrorism has lead us to willingly forsake civil liberties we used to hold dear, but again, the general debate of ‘security versus freedom’ has been around forever.
Sure, the continued march of technology is likely to give us plenty of terrifying new ethical issues to tackle someday soon. Should cloning be allowed? Does lab-grown meat qualify as…
One of the common words that we hippie-type people like to use is the word tolerance. We need to be more tolerant. I said it myself in my last post, but based on a discussion on that post I decided that it was worth investigating this concept of tolerance. While I think many people derived a theme of being more tolerant towards Muslims, what I really meant to look at is what are better and worse ways of dealing with a difficult situation. I’ve come to realize that often when I use the word tolerance, the meaning I hold to it is different than others. And so maybe what I am suggesting is not tolerance at all, but something else.
Ahirhsa refers to non-violence
What I think we can agree on, is that tolerance is definitely not something we should always be doing. We live in a very PC culture where we are being told constantly to be tolerant, but tolerance can lead to passiveness, and there are some things we should not tolerate or be passive about. One could say that being intolerant has led to many important social changes. When laws are unjust being tolerant of them isn’t getting you very far. Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr are good examples of historical figures who were not very tolerant and accomplished great things for their people in the march towards equality and self-determination. But then I also thought about the importance of context. If laws are unjust, if there is oppression, then it is these practices that are intolerant. And shouldn’t we be intolerant to practices that are intolerant. For instance, if black people are not allowed to sit in certain restaurants this would be an example of a system which is not tolerant towards different races. White people would not tolerate a black person sitting next to them while eating. Did black people owe it to white people to be tolerant of their practices so as to not make them feel uncomfortable? Of course not. On the other side we could point to Kim Davis. She doesn’t agree with a law that allows gay people marry. The law is just because it gives equal rights to people of different sexual orientation, and doesn’t infringe on anybody’s ability to practice their own religion. Thus we would ask Kim Davis to be tolerant. Of course, whether it is people not wanting blacks in their restaurant, or gay people to marry, what we are really saying to those people is “you’re wrong, get used to it”. We’re saying, your “intolerance, will no longer be tolerated”. And I believe this is fair and this is right, but there is a little bit of a subtext there that says “You really should change your mind and agree with us, because other ways life is going to be pretty annoying for you”. And again, I’m not saying this isn’t fair, but to the other person they would easily say that we are the intolerant ones of their views and why do they have to show tolerance and we don’t? The word “tolerance”, at least to me, is sort of a confusing word when you think about it.
So going back to the issue of “banning the burka”, if I say tolerance is prudent, what does that mean? First I think it’s important to note that tolerance of an action and condoning that action are different. But if you are really against something, being tolerant and thus passive can be seen as equal as condoning it. I think there is some truth to that, but it’s important to remember that not all people would fight a battle in the same way. Some methods of fighting are more effective and/or cause less overall harm. Kim Davis’ beliefs may make her decide that she should not tolerate what she’s sees as an unjust law and she is welcome to fight it. However there are better and worse ways to do such a thing, and the choice she has made is ultimately ineffective, and denies legal rights to fellow citizens. The burka or niqab is a troubling practice. Women have become so oppressed in some countries that many of them are even complicit with that oppression and would feel real spiritual pain by not following what they believe to be true regarding their value compared to men. Should we tolerate such gender equality? The answer once again is, of course not. However should we be tolerant towards women wearing the burka? Then I would say yes, but I would say that doesn’t mean we can’t do anything about it. So maybe when we ask for tolerance, what we really mean is patience and careful thought. Let’s not have knee-jerk reactions that are governed by our fears, but let’s take actions that are based on our love and compassion. The fight for gender equality is really one about love and compassion. Telling women that they have equal freedom and value as men in society is just that. Freedom of religion is also one of love and compassion because it says to people that you are allowed to keep your beliefs and that the law will not dictate what you must believe. No one else wants their beliefs infringed on so why should we pass laws that infringe on others? Of course that doesn’t mean that you can come into a country and expect that a belief structure that by design causes harm to another group will be easily tolerated, especially when that country has fought long and hard to try and erode the traditions you still hold on to. At the same time, you may also expect that new laws shouldn’t be passed that specifically target you for doing what you were raised culturally to accept as normal. I think it’s also important that when we oppose certain cultural practices that we consider immoral, that we don’t reject an entire a culture. Cultural practices are not homogeneous and thus are not all bad or all good. At the very least some practices may cause no harm at all and thus we should be tolerant of those.
What we are really after, therefore, is a way in which we can present a group of people who have morally unsound practices with a better way of living. In the case of the severe oppression of women in some Islamic countries, a proactive way of doing this is to empower women. Self-determination goes a much longer way in affecting change than oppressive laws. And while it would be nice to have men on the same side, many will resist due to the fact that they will be losing a position of privilege in their society, but ultimately just as the fight for equality here in the U.S. has required the support of men, so will it need to be the case in Islam. One possible way in which we can appeal to the rational in both men and women would be to offer education into the development of children. This article was shared with me by Victoria over at VictoriaNeuronotes and discusses the important of babies being able to see facial expression in their mother. From the article:
Teacher Maryam Khan, says: “Working with young children, so much is read just from facial expressions, you don’t have to speak to a child.
“If they can’t see your face, they don’t know what you’re thinking – a glare, a smile.”
Psychologists agree. “It’s particularly true for children under five because their communication is non-verbal, they’re much better at reading it than adults,” says Dr. Lewis. “If they’re denied these signals they become quite confused.”
If, when in public, the mother’s face is always covered, this has an adverse impact on a baby’s mood and reactions to situations. The YouTube video below demonstrates this impact clearly. And there may be other things that we can discuss with them such as the importance of sunlight to pregnant mothers and babies for Vitamin D. Given that a love of children is cross-cultural and people generally want the best for children, this seems like a proactive way to change minds by connecting with men and women emotionally through the love they have their children, while presenting also a rational argument for the value of not covering your face. What’s best is that is also reveals the best about us. We aren’t trying to persecute anyone, we are showing another culture, our value of education, our shared love of children and wanting the best for them, and that what we want is a conversation and an exchange of ideas, not forcing a behavior through a punitive law. It also shows another culture that we have humility. That we too had practices that were not always beneficial and through the act of investigation and learning we have grown to become more loving and compassionate.
As I ponder more about the word tolerance, the more it seems like a word that isn’t overly descriptive. Because within the idea of tolerance is an implication that one isn’t happy or supportive of a particular behavior and that in some cases, when a particular behavior is harmful we would rather do something about that behavior. What it does not imply is a hasty reaction. We can be patient and thoughtful, and act in away that is inclusive and not exclusive. We can act in a way that is proactive and not adversarial. In the end, I believe, such tactics are more successful.
In the wake of the Syrian refugee crisis the anti-Muslim propaganda has been coming out strong. And my home country of Canada has been no exception. It is personally sad for me to see this, because one of the things I most value about growing up in Canada is its tolerance towards other cultures and its celebration of diversity. As a result of this tradition I think it is no surprise that Islam in Canada is more progressive than any other countries. This declaration made by the Canadian Council of Imams speaks volumes to what Islam means to Muslims living in Canada. And I am sure you can make arguments about passages in the Koran supporting violence towards non-believers, and I can answer back with as many in the Bible so let’s put that aside and simply say that in the march towards a more humane society religion must evolve even if it doesn’t dissolve.
Of course there is much that is troubling in terms of the practice of Islam worldwide. You can find countries where people are killed for simply expressing dissent against the Islamic government, committing blasphemy, committing adultery, being gay, etc. There are of course the acts of terrorism which seem at times unending and of course have impact European countries and the U.S. and a big way. And of course there is the oppression of women, which is horrible and profoundly sad that we still must contend with such disregard for the rights of 50% of the population in this day and age. Some Islamic apologists will argue that this is not the way of Islam, but that being said it is certainly part of the cultural practice in many Islamic countries and I don’t hear a lot of Muslim clerics or imams in those countries saying “Hey let the women go to school and drive, this isn’t what Islam is about!” There are perhaps a lot of reasons to be worried about extreme Islamic practices, and keep in mind that many of the things that we think are extreme such as the oppression of woman, is common place in some countries.
So the question becomes, what do we do about it? Even though most Muslims are not violent and never will be, they have some very unsettling practices that they think are justified according to their religion. Many of them are just as indoctrinated as any of the evangelical community here in the U.S. when it comes to their views on women, foreigners, homosexuals, blacks, etc. So there are some people everywhere who could use some enlightening and so how do we go about doing that? And can in happen sooner than later?
Let’s start by identifying what doesn’t work and that is the banning of religious practices. Though France has banned the burka or niqab, and Switzerland has banned minarets, these practices have not been shown to impact cultural shifts in Islam and have only served to alienate and discriminate portions of the Muslim population, not only in those countries, but have angered Muslims in other countries as well. Isolating and alienating religious communities only builds resentment and will only increase the danger from Islamic groups that the laws seek to avoid. This blog post does a very good job of laying out the argument and I don’t want to repeat too much of what is said here, but any laws restricting religious practices at best do nothing and at worst, make the conflate the problem with archaic religious practices.
If history has taught us anything it is that oppression of a religion is a bad idea if we want to actually stop it. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and Europe. At least some of that may be due to the attempts at suppression of religious practices. Anti-Christian laws during Roman rule shortly after the time of Jesus actually led to an even faster spread of Christianity throughout Europe and Asia. It’s human nature that once you start persecuting somebody or some people for what they believe it causes a lot of people to start to ask questions, especially those who don’t trust the government. What is so dangerous about these ideas? Why should we fear them? In general we are compassionate people, and when we see people suffer by not having the freedom to practice their beliefs (regardless of whether such beliefs are just) we tend to side with them. The last thing we want is a lot of people being on the same side of some unjust ideas.
I know for many of my readers, you have gotten into some arguments with people who have strong beliefs. How did those discussions go? We often think the more brilliant and final are arguments are the more impactful we’ll be. As I wrote before this tends to not work so well because of the “backfire effect” and so if it doesn’t work very well on an individual level, such things tend to not work so well at a group level either. If our western society is to have any superior morality it comes from practicing the values that we think our important. If freedom is one of them than freedom of religion must be part of what we embrace. Giving people the freedom to practice their religious beliefs is something we want, because if the state starts making laws to ban religious practices, there is nothing to stop them from banning yours if they see fit. By valuing freedom we set an example that as a society that we respect other people and want them to enjoy the same freedoms that we enjoy. And of course there are other important values we must practice to which is tolerance, equality, compassion, justice, etc, so that if religious practices don’t value you those things we can show them how well it can work. If we want such people to convinced of a better worldview and a better way to live, we need to show that our values leads to a greater empathy, less suffering, and an overall increase in happiness. No words or laws are going to convince people unless they are shown. Part of why they may believe what they believe is that they’ve been indoctrinated against other cultural practices and have never seen any other way of life work.
Racist, and not a particularly helpful solution to terrorism.
I believe if anything is going to erode fundamentalism from any religion it is by showing those people the effectiveness of the values that we hold most dear. It is about embracing those people while at the same time showing them diversity of thought and ideas. It is about offering them a high level of education for their children, to help them think critically about the ideas that have been indoctrinated into their culture. It is about being humble enough to recognize that even if there many values that we do not share, they may even have something to teach us. We say we want these people to respect the laws of our country and yet this seems like much to ask if we exclude and not include. So instead of memes that enhance Islamophobia, why not spread memes that empower those that are oppressed to take advantage of the freedoms they would have in our country? Why not merrily shout out what rights they game by coming here? Why not greet them as friends instead of treating them like the enemy? It is likely that to truly raise the consciousness of many of those indoctrinated it will take the course of a couple generations as children are born into a freer and more equitable society. So let’s those children also growing up seeing the compassion and tolerance their parents did not have the freedom to enjoy.
Maybe a more positive meme as a way to empower Muslim women
Of course if you are in the U.S. you know that life is all a buzz because the Pope is here. Democrats are happy, Republicans are mad, life can’t get better for us liberals right?
Now don’t get me wrong…I think this pope is miles ahead of popes in the past and I really love his positive messages about doing something about climate change, helping refugees, and taking care of the poor. But….
On the topic of climate change, there this group, let’s call them a hell of a lot of scientists across numerous scientific disciplines who have been saying we need to do something about climate change. But if the Pope says, then we better start listening.
There are a large group of people who feel great compassion for the poor and already believe we should be helping them. The Pope says we should help them and so now we better start listening.
There are a lot of people who think we need to deal with the humanitarian crisis in Syria better. The Pope has made it clear we must help, so now we better start listening.
And look, I get it to a certain point, because there is a large portion of this country who only start to take things seriously when it is said by religious authority, but that doesn’t mean we should really be happy about it.
Secular humanists and those that value the scientific method as the best way to try and understand how the universe works are years ahead of the church on these kinds of issues and yet nothing can be done about it until the Pope says to do something about it?
But here is the thing, the Pope is right, but there is nothing about his religion beliefs that are germane to the issues he speaks of. Helping the poor is a matter of acting out of our natural capacity to feel empathy, it speaks to equality, and human rights. There is nothing divine about it. Doing something about climate change has nothing to do with the story of Jesus Christ. Once again it is being proactive about reducing suffering and listening to what 1000’s of scientists are saying who have spent years and years researching changes to our environment. If there was no Pope and no God this would all still be the right thing to do, because why let people suffer?
So I’m happy that the Pope is saying all these things, but there are many among you have been saying these things all along. Intelligent and compassionate people. They aren’t called the Pope but maybe they are worth listening to as well. To me it’s a bit sad that we have to look to a man who says many things other have said all along, but just because he is the Pope it becomes relevant.
It is science alone that can solve the problems of hunger and poverty, of insanitation and illiteracy, of superstition and deadening custom and tradition, of vast resources running to waste, of a rich country inhabited by starving people… Who indeed could afford to ignore science today? At every turn we have to seek its aid … the future belongs to science and those who make friends with science. – Jawaharlal Nehru – 1961
I’m trying hard to have the occasional short post for people who are tired of my long posts, so this seemed like a good one. 🙂 A friend of ours had no use anymore for a Roadmaster red wagon that their grandchildren had outgrown and gave it to us. My son took right away to sitting in the wagon and has opted to be pulled around in the wagon instead of being pushed in the stroller. I have taken him a few times now on a two mile route around my neighborhood in which one leg of the journey goes down one of the main roads in town and I have to say it’s a special experience.
It’s interesting how the red wagon seems to evoke emotion in the faces of others. For most it brings smiles and a sense of nostalgia. Today one gentleman was outside his home and on his phone and he called out to me and told me to stop and wanted to take a picture and he exclaimed to the person he was talking to “You’ll never believe it, but there is a guy pulling his kid around on a red flyer!”. And he did take a picture of me and my son. 🙂 The reaction is much stronger than pushing him around on the stroller. A lot of people point, or wave to him (he sort of just stares blankly unsure of why he has become so popular). Maybe it’s because it is a classic wagon that the nostalgia is stronger. Maybe the reaction would not be the same if it was some other color or some other brand. Some people seem to feel a little sad though. Nostalgia tends to do that as sometimes I see faces with a little bit of longing, perhaps for the past long since gone. And sometimes I swear I see a deeper sadness, perhaps wishing that their mother or father would have taken them on wagon rides, or the remembrance of a parent that has passed on.
It’s nevertheless comforting to me that such simple things can evoke such emotion. That small things can feel so grand. I enjoy the feeling of taking him for a walk on a warm autumn day. And for a short time that little wagon becomes a grand chariot to my son and to all around him, and even though I’m the one pulling it, I feel as rich as any king.
I have had several posts that deal with the idea of heroes and are propensity for elevating people to the heights of perfection. Such posts can be posted here, here and here. But I also wanted to add to this an excellent post by somebody who is turning into one my heroes (because he hasn’t revealed any flaws to me…yet) who writes an excellent ethics blog. He approaches the idea of heroes with an excellent thought experiment and by reminding us that it’s the worth of the ideas we should always be analyzing rather than the worth of the person who puts forth those ideas. Now I promise not blog anymore about heroes. 🙂 Maybe.
I recently watched this clip from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver about public defenders. It is not a slam against public defenders, but rather a criticism of a system in which anywhere from 60-90% of people arrested cannot afford lawyers and rely on public defenders, but there are just far too many of them for public defenders to do their job adequately. This leaves many defendants with less than adequate representation. As a result over 90% of cases by public defenders end in plea bargains, even when the people aren’t guilty. That’s a quick summary, but watching the clip is well worth the time and speaks for itself.
And I started to think about the entire philosophy of justice we have in this country and got really sad about it all. It would be one thing if we had a beautiful ideal and we were continually striving towards it, but it seems that there is enough of a portion of this country that feel justice is working fine, and that if you are in a position to be arrested than you simply have some sort of punishment coming your way. The system is rigged from the police procedures that target low income people knowing that many can’t afford to fight back and will pay fines whether they were really guilty or not, to the court system which puts low income people at a severe disadvantage, to the prison system which profits from long jail sentences for minimal crimes. And once they are in there, opportunities are so low once they get out. As President Obama said, we have 5% of the world’s population, but 25% of the world’s prison population and compared to other western nations with similar standards of living we are one of the least safe nations. The violent crime rate is down 40% from what it was in 1980 and yet prison populations have increased by over 400%. Something is definitely not right.
And my question really is why is it this way? As poverty continues to grow in this country why do we continue to punish the most impoverished of our people for simply being in poverty? I’m not saying that there aren’t people who commit crimes and that we should just let it happen, but when you look at the environment and challenges they face, those who criticize rarely have experienced such adversity. Sure there is always a small portion who rise out of poverty but for the most part the poor are simply exploited for their labor or for their money. On average, we don’t give them a living wage, we don’t give them access to equal education, we don’t give them equal access to quality health care, and we don’t give them equal access to healthy and affordable food options.
But they all deserve it right? Making those bad decisions when they had so many good decisions open to them. Do we not have a responsibility to raise the less fortunate up? Do we just leave those who haven’t had the opportunities we had to languish and justify it with the idea it’s their fault they are in this position? What about forgiveness? What about compassion? How can we paint such a large population of our country with just one color and ignore the tapestry of lives that exist there? As the top income earners continue to suck away the wealth of the bottom 99% why do we turn our attention downwards, kicking those at the bottom instead of shaking the tree more to let the fruit fall to the ground? Some people in this country act like if we just eliminated the poor the country would be a better place, but in fact it would be chaos and nothing would remain. No soldiers to fight our wars, no workers to pick our food, serve our food, work in retail, and all the other jobs we don’t even notice get done everyday. And even if the void could be filled, the capitalist policies our country function on would simply shift more of us down to the bottom, while the rich keep benefiting.
Welcome to an economy built on consumerism and profit. To answer the real question why, one simply has to follow the money. It is to the benefit of the rich to keep the population of a large portion of the country poor. Because there is only so far wealth can grow, it is finite and if the populous has more, they have less. Life, liberty, and happiness for all citizens of this country take a backseat when money is involved.
I know this post was ranty and I try to put more logical discourse, but just sometimes you just look at these large systems that are so difficult to change when you are just one person and see millions upon millions of people being impacted by a system that is simply not there to help them, and in the long run doesn’t help the rest of us either. I made a resolution with myself about a year ago then when I moved strongly by something emotionally I need to not just complain but do something positive, even if it’s just donate some money to a worthwhile charity. Although perhaps on the periphery of the central theme of this post, there is something that I have been sort of procrastinating getting involved in for some time and I am happy to say I am procrastinating no longer. I have decided to be a CASA volunteer which is a wonderful program where the volunteer acts as an advocate for a neglected or abused child in court until the system finds them a good and safe home. Incarceration is a strong possibility for children who grow up in broken homes and maybe helping in this way I can help a few kids stay out of the prison system in this country.
Well maybe it’s because they had bad teachers of their faith. Maybe it’s because they have low levels of education. Maybe it’s because their parents were judgmental, strict people who never gave their children the freedom to ask questions and really explore their faith. Maybe they grew up in an intolerant environment. And all these things are possible, but wouldn’t anybody turn out to be a rather less than good person in such an environment? And maybe the reason you are a good person is because you were raised in a good and loving environment and wouldn’t anybody turn out the same way regardless of their religion? And why should the word of God Himself, the perfection of perfection, the only omniscient presence in the universe depend so much on someone’s level of education, how they were raised? Why is it so easy to get it wrong and misinterpret it?
Cloak Unfurled 