This area is for some of my older writings.
While I still tend to believe at least some of the things that inspired many of these sentiments, I cringe at the way I expressed myself back when I wrote them. I'm bringing these over to the new site mostly for old time's sake.
Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?
How many creatures truly have the capacity to anticipate the future and plan for it? Supposedly humans do... if so, they are not using the ability on a wide scale.
Often, I hear people say "there is no answer" when what they really mean is "I don't like the answer". Sometimes, the right answer is very hard... sometimes it seems impossible... but when you want to achieve a certain goal, then you either do what you must to reach it... or choose not to reach it. I think also that many times, people say they _can't_ do something, when they actually could... but it would be hard. It is far easier on the conscience when you are unable to do something you ought to, as opposed to merely being unwilling to do it.
I'm a coyote person. What do they do? They survive. They work with what they have... they take what they can get... they stay coyotes, but change to meet the needs of their environment. Since coyotes die a lot, they make sure to make more coyotes. Since critters with large close families all in the same place tend to get killed off in huge batches, coyotes live separate (in the west, anyway). Coyotes are practical and adaptable. There are enough of them that they can try out new ways of getting by all the time. There need to be lots, because some of the things they try end disastrously. What do coyotes do to survive? They learn. They adapt. They evolve. Coyotes do not wish to die out... ergo, that means adapting to changing circumstances. Coyotes are one of the oldest... some think THE oldest actual canid still existing today. They've managed to adapt their behavior to survive in every kind of climate and situation for over a million years. And through all that... they've managed to remain relatively unchanged in form.
I think that the red wolf in me... very closely related to coyote... might just be the part that watches out for things other than the individual. I feel that the red wolf I feel a closeness to is a symbol of a sacred trust... a relatively recent obligation on my part. If the individual lives at the expense of it's race or it's environment, it's not very evolutionarily viable in the long run, is it? Individuals will always make the greatest leaps... but co-operative groups will always have the greatest effect. To be truly viable, one cannot only worry about one's own immediate needs. One must worry about one's kin, one's kind, one's world. One must care enough to do this. Things that do not care about what comes after them die out, if they have the power to affect their world but don't care how they affect it. Sex drive is okay for small dumb critters with no thumbs. It'll usualy suffice to get em by... but the world is changing... love for one's children, love beyond beyond one's self... THAT was a helluva invention. Love for one's family, one's mate... one's siblings children... even better. If you learn to love the grass you walk on, the food you eat... now that is something... because it ensures you will HAVE grass to walk on, air to breathe, food to eat, beauty to enjoy. And that your children will, too.
Not that coyotes don't look out for things beyond themselves... they do... ask any coyote that is living all alone so that it's mate and children are less likely to get killed. Some of y'all may be shocked to hear this... but many coyotes mate for life. Even ones that see each other only rarely!
I don't think humans retain, in great enough quantity, the instinct to care for things outside themselves. First they learned it was easy not to respect the stones and earth... then the plants... then the animals... then humans not like themselves... then humans like themselves... then anyone but themselves... now many do not care for their children even, or their parents. I think many of them have learned not to even care for themselves.
They certainly don't care about whales or wolves or rain forests or oceans, or blue skies or the future. Not enough to do anything. Eventually, that lack of care means that they won't have been supporting things that keep humankind alive. And so they will die. Maybe everything else will too. Unless something occurs to change that course... that's what's gonna happen. I firmly believe this. If some humans... or someone else... does not change that course... that's what will happen. I've met a lot of people that say "Nature and Mother Earth are too powerful for mere humans to affect, so nothing we do will matter". I've also heard "Well... even if everything dies here, life will begin anew, even if it's only bacteria". I'm sorry... but I think those are copouts. Reasons not to do anything. And frankly... I don't like bacteria enough to think they are a good trade for everything else. Great... a ball of polluted rock covered with bacteria and dead things. That's a great thing to waste eternity on. Pardon me if I mislike that idea, okay?
We must move to change our inertia. Inertia ignores wishful thinking completely. Inertia is that little rule that unless something happens to change the state of something, that state will remain the same. If something is moving in a certain path, it will continue to do so unless something changes it's path.
Now... all I/we have to do is figure out how to fight inertia. Ideas welcome. My werecard has had this stuff in it for years, and I've heard no suggestions.
I'm going to go a little into the Mythic here. I'll do all sorts of anthropomorphizing of abstract forces. Bear with me.
An important question... which is more powerful and natural a force? Adaptive life or entropy? What will make the difference? Life can choose to be alive... that is not to say it WILL choose to fight entropy.. but it CAN. Entropy cannot choose, but it can wait for life to quit trying. Life, in order to continue, must create a self-sustaining cycle... a system that functions like a perpetual motion machine. It must be able to change as the circumstances around it change. But whatever change it makes, it must choose something that is self-sustaining. Life that only takes will eventually run out of things to take.
What tools did life truly need to evolve in order to fight entropy? Will. It needed will. And desire. The will to do so and the desire to do so. And sentience... the ability to figure out how to do something. I think that Life (itself) must want to exist... because Will, Desire and Sentience certainly exist. And I think also that life needs Love... love being that force which makes one life care what happens to something other than itself. Because otherwise... all that kind of life would do is make itself happy and not put it's will, desire and sentience to use in making life as a whole continue.
Can humans choose to evolve? Maybe. If not... can something else take their place? Maybe humans were only a by-product or an intermediary step, along with certain other critters. Some life must have evolved to do certain other duties than be sentient, willful or loving or desirous. Look at plants. So which life forms (and I suspect it would have to be more than one kind of life, more than one kind of species) must evolve for the specific purpose of allowing life as a whole to continue?
Something that not only possess the capacity for, but actively utilizes Sentience, Desire, Will and Love. Something that decides what to do in order for all life to continue, and ACTS on that decision.
Co-operation, while a neat trick, a necessary one for efficiency's sake, is not the whole thing. Co-operative effort without all the above gives you anthills, termite mounds, wasp nests... and big dirty cities full of rapidly reproducing people that cannot be controlled by disease, predation, or anything else except the eventual lack of resources. Bad juju. Humans, or whatever succeeds them must (I believe) use those four things I outline above... and probably co-operation too. I doubt it'll work so well without the tool of co-operation. It'd be like trying it without thumbs.
I choose B, please
I disagree with the assumption that we're all flawed and inherently unworthy. I am a pantheist, which means I believe that the divine exists in everything... including us.
I think that any way of life, religious or otherwise that is based on weakness, frailty and giving one's self up to never being able to improve is unhealthy.
I don't know about omniscient... or omnipotent... but I believe divinity is omnipresent.
I think that if there is an infinite creative force, that means that we are all reflections of it. We are each not the whole... but we're part of it... we're fashioned from that force. If the Creative Force is infinite... or started as the most infinite thing... then there was nothing to fashion us from except the substance of the divine. What could we possibly be, if not pieces of that creative force?
Therefore, I think it's silly to believe that we are inherently flawed, sick, evil or unclean. I think that if it was possible to insult that creative force, that such a supposition would be insulting.
Humanity isn't perfect... each of us is imperfect... but we can strive for betterment. We are not inherently unclean and bad. We have the potential to make wonders of ourselves... or terrors.. or nothing at all.
I heard a person the other night talking on and on about how his faith taught him that we were all sinners and doomed to hell unless god saved us. He went on to say that we could never approach god or have any sort of relationship with him because of our imperfections. That because we are inherently unclean and evil, and god is perfect, we could not even approach god. God had to "sully" himself by sending his son to pay for our inherent evil.
He went on to discuss how we could never be anything on our own... never be clean, never be good enough. That nothing we ourselves could do would make us worthy creatures. That we had to give ourselves up to an outside force to be "saved". He kept saying that Christianity, his view of it anyway, teaches that we are all sinners, unless we are saved... that no matter what we do, we will never be saved unless his god saves us. That we are no good, and cannot be on our own. That we are born in evil, and sin and that we cannot be save ourselves. He said that we must realize our own unworthiness, and beg for forgiveness.
Well... I think that's garbage.
I am a good person. I am beautiful inside. I'm am terrible, and joyful and loving and full of fury. I am not broken. I am not sick. I am not unholy and impure and evil. I create myself every day. I heal myself every day.
I don't need to be found. I'm not lost.
I don't need to be saved, I'm not defiled.
I have this wonderful creative soul... we all do... I have the capacity to choose my own way... the tools I need to create of my own self a better person. So what do I have these tools for? Not so I can demean myself... not so I can call myself foul. Not so I can tell myself that I am weak and always will be weak. Not so I can tell myself I am inherently soiled. Not so I can give up that freedom of will and life to another.
I cherish my soul, my will, my life as I cherish the whole wonder of creation, as I cherish all the other acts of creation.
Some people believe suicide is a sin, because we were given a gift of life and killing ourselves is an act of insult to the giver of life.
Well... I believe that belittling myself.. believing I am unholy, unworthy, weak and forever flawed is an insult to my soul... which is more important than my body. I believe it is insulting to the force that abides in all things. Or it would be an insult if that force could be insulted. If I was created by the divine... if my life is indeed a gift of the divine... then what is my justification for telling the Divine "I am worthless?".
Some people, on their journeys, become weak, or injured. Or they become sick or even evil. We all make ourselves differently... and other forces DO act on us. Sometimes we are afraid, or foolish, or hurtful. Sometimes we are tired. Sometimes we are weak.
But that does not mean that we are made of something flawed.
I hear people being told, all the time... "Accept that you are flawed... accept that you are helpless", when they aren't really.
"You are depressed... you can't ever get better from that so take this pill for the rest of your life."
"You are an alcoholic... you need to admit that you cannot ever fix that, so someone else will have to do it for you."
"You just need to realize you cannot change things in this world... don't waste your energy trying."
I hear people being taught, over and over, every day all the reasons why they cannot, why they should not try, why they are helpless, why they do not matter. And I think people in general LIKE to hear this... because once they have accepted defeat and powerlessness... there is no longer any reason to try. Once they have accepted that they should let someone else think for them (whether it's their god, or the media, or the government or their friends or the doctor)... then they are relieved of the burden of thought. Once they accept that something is futile, it becomes acceptable to surrender.
I have seen people that are missing legs but run marathons on artificial legs.
I once saw a painting created by a lady with no hands.
Good thing they didn't accept defeat. Good thing they didn't accept that they were "inherently flawed."
When they DID call on the divine, it wasn't to say "I'm not worthy"... it was to say "Help be be stronger, and better."
"Stand with me," I pray. Not "Step on me."
Yes... you have to choose your battles... you have to decide which obstacles you are going to face... but you should look at each one... every one... and say to yourself... "That is something I can overcome."
I don't believe in "You cannot, you aren't good enough... accept that you are weak and that you can never be anything but a sinner and only something from outside you can fix you".
I won't follow any philosophy that tells you to accept flaws and weaknesses and not act to change them.
It's easier when you can say "I can't", instead of "I won't," or "I don't want to try". And I feel that tendency is widely exploited in our society. People tell us we can't. They do it so we'll behave as they'd like us to... and we believe it because it's easy.
I can be anything I want to be. I can make anything of myself.
I don't need to be fixed because I am not broken. And if I do break, I can fix myself. I know... I've done it before.
And if I want help with that, I am in a universe filled with that creative force, in the form of beauty, trees, rivers, people, animals.
I don't think I have to beg creation for what it gives freely.
I don't have to beg the divine for forgiveness or mercy or healing.. because the divine has given me the beautiful river to look upon. The blue sky to walk under, my beautiful family to love and talk to.
I don't need to beg for what I already have. I don't need to buy it, or trade for it or give up my soul, my will or my responsibility.
I believe that we all of us have that spark of creative force in us.. that same Spirit. I believe that it is always within our power to feed it, fan it, make it greater.
I believe that is how we are made.
Aug 4, 2004 (later edited on September 3, 2005)
One of the things that gets to me, that I think is something of a double standard is this:
And this is not just Christians who do this... I see pagans do it too... all the time!
A person will present to me a belief that they use as a foundation for their system of beliefs.
I will say that I don't personally share that belief.
They will then attempt to prove the belief is true, by appealing to a book or authority. For Christians, this is generally the bible, and with pagans or metaphysical types, it'll be either a pagan authority figure (Gardner, Buckland, or often someone not so legitimate) or perhaps some pseudo-sciencey thing that babbles about quantum physics (which they'll use to "prove" something like the existence of ghosts or magick).
Now... my response to the bible argument is usually something on the order of "I can't use a book as proof just because the book says to believe the book." Anyone who can't understand why that is a circular argument is probably not able to be reasoned with.
With the pagan types who try to prove that, for instance, Wicca is a thousands-of-years-old religion that survived in an unbroken line underground and has re-established itself, I'll explain that it appears this isn't true and that it seems clear that a few recent historical figures just made that up to make it seem to have more authority.
When it's a tin-foil-hat theory from a metaphysical person, I'll attempt to point out the flaws or inconsistencies in the pseudoscience, or point out places where the stuff they use as "evidence" is really stuff that could be interpreted very differently and doesn't justify a particular belief. I've seen a lot of people who don't really understand science or technology, who, through their misunderstanding of the subject, will draw a lot of faulty conclusions.
And then - and here's the good part - in response to any logical arguments, the person generally falls back on an argument like "Some things aren't a matter of proof, but of faith", or "Sometimes you have to go with your heart, and not your head."
Which is a fine argument, and one I can respect.
But when I say "Well, my heart tells me the thing you are talking about isn't true for me", they return to the "authority" or "proof".
If it's a matter of faith, that's fine. I'm cool with that. But I believe that the other person should respect my decision on where I put my faith.
If it's something that's a matter of proof... don't mix it with faith. Use the proof. If the proof isn't good enough, then it's not good enough.
Often, what I actually see is people attempting to prove their beliefs are true to other people... and they become fearful and insecure if they cannot do so. While a great deal of lip-service is made to faith, it seems apparent that what they really want is proof, and the only "faith" I see comes from ignoring holes in their proof. To me, that's not faith, that's merely self-delusion.
To me, the core message of Christianity is not "The bible is true, now worship Jehovah or else". It's "Here's how Christ acted, and how he said others ought to act." It wasn't about it being the law so much as about right action and how to treat others and govern yourself.
In other words, within that message, regardless of the amount of literal truth or representation of the events, regardless of what can be proved, the message is "You should be good to others and carry a message of love in your heart, and trust that the Creator is good and loving." This, taken on faith, regardless of proof, is a perfectly valid message. You don't need to prove to another person that God came down and wrote such and so passage, or that Jesus actually said this or that, or that nobody lied or re-wrote, or mistranslated anything.
And you don't need to blind yourself to the fact that there are other parts of the Bible that say certain things are right, that most people nowadays feel to be wrong. It's not generally considered "okay" to own slaves, much less beat them. It's not usually considered okay to kill your children if they do wrong. Nice gods don't feed kids to bears just because they made fun of a bald guy. Most people nowadays don't believe that men are inherently smarter and more important than women.
For Wicca to be a valid religion likewise does not require proof that it existed in unbroken form for thousands of years. To begin with... it didn't. The beliefs and fundamentals and faith of it do not require that Gerald Gardner not have made up a religion. The tenets that good becomes more good, and bad becomes more bad, of personal responsibility for one's actions, and of recognizing the connection to the earth and to other spirits does not require that "Gospel of the Witches" not have been made up in the last century. Even if Gardner and others did make it all up or fib about what they borrowed or recreated, that doesn't mean the faith itself is invalid.
The metaphysical person who wants to believe in life after death or "energy work" does not need to prove that quantum particles and energy generators use blah blah scientific theory. Generally, that's hokum. What they're attempting to do, pretty much, is use pseudoscience to justify the faith in something that they already have.
And when you need to justify something, that usually tells me that some part of you doesn't really believe in it. When you are afraid to think about something, or apply reason to it, that tells me that some part of you really doesn't have faith in it.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you need proof for your faith, let it be good proof. If you don't need proof for your faith, don't try to predicate your faith on proof.
I think what happens when people proselytize or try to infect others with their personal memes is that they know the other person doesn't share their faith, so they try to convert them with proof. The problem is, when the proof is bad, then people are following something based on a bad decision, a decision involving neither faith nor logic, neither intuition nor intellect. It becomes an empty belief system for the other people.
And when that happens, even if the message were good, people aren't truly absorbing it. They're only absorbing the justifications or the fabrications. And that puts them at a remove from true understanding or true faith.
You can use anything you want as an excuse to believe something. You can use faith, or science. You can use bad science if you want. You can just pull it outta your butt if you want.
But when attempting to get others to believe something, I think it becomes of dire importance to not only make sure that what you are trying to feed them is good - in other words, has value beyond the value to yourself, but also that if you are founding your beliefs on faith, especially, that you must respect their desire to find their faith in another way or not at all.
When you trust in faith, and when you believe that faith is the most important reason to believe something, how can you put less trust in the faith of others? If it is that meaningful to you, how can you deny another their own faith?
- If you have to trick someone into believing
- if you have to use excuses, or misdirection, or rhetorical arguments or other tricks
- if you have to fool someone into believing something
- if you have to try and rewrite science or history
- if you truly feel you need to hide from truth in any way, or hide the truth from another in any way, in order for them to adopt your belief system
- If your own beliefs can only survive if you put blinders on
..then I would suggest that your own beliefs may be suspect. And that what you are trying to pass on may not be good.
If you have to blind yourself in order to keep your "faith", then it's not really faith. Faith comes after you know all you can. Faith comes from an educated decision, it is a deliberate decision.
I read a quote from someone in the Letters column of the September 5, 2005* issue of TIME magazine, by a lady named Beverly Friedenberg, that I think sums it up best:
"No person of faith should be threatened by science, nor should science be subverted to serve one particular religious belief"
When I was shown the difference between faith and certainty, I feared that this would make me feel faith even less. After all, if I knew what was true, beyond a shadow of a doubt, where was there room for faith?
I can ask people to take this on faith: faith is not about certainty. It's about trust. It's not about knowing or proving the answer, it's about choosing what you believe that answer must be.
To me, faith is not the same as belief. Faith is when you say "I choose to trust that this must be true."
You have a belief. You choose to have faith.
Faith is when you decide "This is how the universe is. This is the I know things must be. This is what I choose to hold true to and believe in."
You can use science, or you can use intuition, or you can pull the reason for your faith outta your butt. Even a scientist must have faith that their tools or methods are valid, or that what their universe seems to be is what it truly is.
When I have faith in my fellow man, it is not because I have evidence. It is because I have taken all that I have seen in people, and all that I feel about people, and have chosen to believe that there is something worthwhile in the human race. I don't know if there is. I don't know if we will make it. I choose to have faith that we'll make it. I choose to have faith that the best parts of us will win out over the worst.
I don't know if there is a Creator. I choose to have faith that there is. I choose to believe that my experiences and memories and feelings in that regard are true. And I choose to believe - in other words, I have faith that - Creator made the universe as an act of love. As an act of wishing to be. Not to toy with us, and not so that there would be something to offer worship, but for the sake of there being a Universe. I have faith that we are all part of that great creation, and that however things turn out, that it all matters.
That is what I choose to believe. That is what I hold to. That is what I put my faith in.
In light of that, it does not matter that I have doubts. It does not matter that I lack evidence I could show to another, or even to myself.
I choose that it is so. I have faith that it is so.
Whaddya mean my table isn't ready?
Cannot guarantee availability? Then what's the reservation for?!!!
I've noticed an interesting trend... it seems many places that allow you to make reservations do not see fit to actually guarantee that they will reserve the item or service for you.
I don't know how many times I've heard of a person that makes a reservation to rent a car (or a hotel room or a table at a restaurant), gives their credit card information or other form of deposit, and then arrives to discover that there is nothing waiting for them. Often, this is because the record of the reservation transaction was lost or ignored. But many times, it is the result of an insidious policy... where the company "cannot guarantee availability".
Well then... why make a reservation? Y'see... that's what a reservation is. It means that the business will _reserve_ the item, product or service for you, because you have promised in advance (sometimes with your money or credit backing up your promise) to come in at a certain time and give them your business. You are doing a company a favor by making a reservation, just as much as they are doing you a courtesy by arranging it.
Here's how you help a company by making a reservation:
A: You are guaranteeing them business in advance... they don't have to worry so much about how many tables they'll have filled, or cars rented, or items sold... because you've already promised them in advance. They know they have a customer already. You have told them, beforehand that you'll be coming to them and not a competitor.
B: When you give them money in advance... you are guaranteeing that they'll have your business... and may even have your money earning interest in the meantime.
C: When you only give them a credit card number or the like, they can know in advance if they have a customer willing and able to pay.
D: You are enabling them to adjust their schedule, so they they will know what products or services will be required at a certain time. They'll know what supplies to order, how many people have to be available for a service, etc.
E: You enable them to get paperwork (if any) done in their own time-managed schedule, rather than the last minute. Places can often batch together many similar transactions, rather then doing them one at a time (for instance credit reports, faxes, photocopying).
In return for all this, the business is supplying you with the convenience of knowing that when you arrive to collect your good or service, that it will be ready and waiting, hassle-free. Seems like a small price for a business to pay, in my opinion.
Great... an amendment to limit the freedoms the American flag is supposed to stand for. What won't they think of next?
The flag is not important as a physical object so much as a symbol, of the spirit of freedom, and the price paid for it. It is a symbol of the sacrifices made for freedom, and the highest spiritual ideals associated with it. That's what flags are for. They are symbols of what we stand for.
You cannot destroy, defame, or harm what the flag represents by destroying the physical embodiment of the flag. You cannot hurt the flag by burning it. You can only hurt the flag, and the things it represents, by restricting the rights that it stands for, including the right to freedom of expression.
To invest the physical representation of the flag with laws protecting it from harm is like saying that a few pieces of colored cloth are more important than the freedoms that people died to pass on to their children and countrymen. It is saying that indeed, those freedoms count for little.
Such a law would be a travesty. You can burn only cloth with that fire. With those laws, you can destroy what the cloth is a symbol of.
When I see a flag being burned, to me, it is a cry for help, a cry for justice, a sign that we must examine whether the sacred freedoms were already trampled. To punish the people who burn a flag because they feel America has not lived up to it's job of protecting their rights and freedoms is merely proof that they are correct. When a flag is burned, it is a sign that we must pay attention, not punish.
Okay... It's sometimes a sign that someone's just being a jerk or making a bid for attention. If being a jerk or making bids for attention were illegal though, all our politicians would be locked up.
My maternal grandfather fought in World War 2. He was injured more than once and risked his life to protect our country. He has since passed on... and while I know that he would NEVER burn a flag, he told me many times that he was against the laws that would make it illegal to do so. He said he thought that people were idiots to burn the flag, but that they had the right to do it.
My father's father served in both WW1 and WW2. He and my father taught me how to fold a flag and properly care for it. I'm not against the flag. I'm strongly in favor of the freedoms it is supposed to represent. I am strongly against the heinous error of protecting the symbol, while violating what it stands for. That flag has been waved far too many times over unjust causes. That's not what it's for.
I am willing to choose who I vote for based on this issue alone. Free speech _seems_ like a small thing... until you realize that when it is impinged upon, it becomes harder and harder to defend every other freedom. I've heard the argument that this should be a special case where free speech should not be allowed. Uh-huh... what's the next special case gonna be?
If the constitution can be altered and amended so easily, over such non-issues as flag-burning (how many flags are burned every year? How many people are harmed by the burning of a flag? How many flags are burned that are not the property of the people burning them?), then I feel that future civil liberties are in ever-increasing jeopardy.
The flag-burning amendment is , IMHO, more of a "flag-waving" motion (Ow... pun)... designed to create noise, without improving life in our country. It is a waste of time, as well as an abrogation of the free speech rights that so many people died to protect.
If the constitution is amended, it should be in such a way that freedoms are protected, quality of life is improved, and justice for PEOPLE - not articles of cloth - is preserved. I would support an amendment that makes women equally-protected and empowered citizens. I would support an amendment guaranteeing freedoms to all of us. I will never support an amendment that inhibits the very right to free speech that was such a primary motivation for founding this country that it is part of our FIRST amendment rights... along with freedom of religion.
If I ever burn a flag... it'll be to put it out of it's misery, because people have forgotten what it stands for.
Note: I've evolved my beliefs on the necessity of forgiveness since I wrote this. I now have an understanding of why forgiveness, properly given, is important for people, families and societies. It does server a purpose when used properly with both rational thought and compassion. I still think people forgive, or expect forgiveness too readily, and often lose sight of what it means.
an essay about the value of forgiveness... and about not giving it too lightly!
Something I've noticed... and it seems like a good thing on it's face... is that the culture most of us grew up in tells us we must feel obliged to offer forgiveness in order to be "good people". Is this actually a pagan tenet?
I think that we are encouraged to forgive too freely. It's not that I think we should never forgive... but that we should be a lot more circumspect and responsible about it.
If we allow someone to abuse us, and then say "It's okay... I forgive you"... I believe that's like saying "It's okay to abuse me." And by extension "It's okay to abuse others".
When we forgive someone for doing wrong... when they are not required to change or do anything meaningful... we are, I believe... advocating their behavior. We're saying it's okay. We're saying "It's all right to do that to me and to others". Forgiveness without adequate restitution is like a "Get out of Responsibility Free" card.
There really seems to be this feeling of _obligation_ to offer forgiveness. I don't think forgiveness should be an obligation on the part of the wronged party. I think it should be considered a noteworthy gift, when offered.
I think that any obligation should be felt by the wrongdoer... an obligation to EARN forgiveness.
Something else I've seen... is a tendency to forgive people for things that they have done to others. How can you do that? How can Jesus... just as an example... forgive someone for putting _my_ eye out (if that happened)? I once had someone ask me "I slept around on my spouse, who is your good friend... can you forgive me?" Of course I could not... I was not the wronged party... I had no right to forgive that person even if I wanted to.
Part of that feeling of obligation to forgive seems to compel some people to forgive people for personal flaws. "Oh... I'll forgive them because they just don't know any better" or "I'll forgive them because that's just the kind of people they are and they cannot help it". I'll cut someone a little slack for being ignorant... but not stupid or hurtful. I don't think there's any such thing as "I didn't know I should not hurt people".
I don't believe that people are inherently flawed. I extrapolate that to mean that I don't believe anyone has an inherent excuse for being a jerk. We're responsible for ourselves and our actions. I don't even believe too much of that "it's how they were raised" stuff. I know lots of people who were raised to hate Jewish people, or blacks, or gays... or "heathens"... who don't do it. Just because someone tells you "it's okay" doesn't mean it is.
I believe in forgiving someone when they have earned forgiveness. Then, maybe that forgiveness means something.
Also... Forgiveness, by itself is fairly useless as I see it.
It might make you feel better, it might make the other person feel better... but it doesn't undo whatever wrong was done. The wrong still happened. Forgiveness is, to me... FAR less important than making things right.
I think that forgiveness has much more value when it is a call to action. When it inspires someone to attempt restitution, or growth. When it is used as an inspiration to right a mistake... or in the case of unrightable wrongs, to become a better person.
Let's say that someone dumps toxic waste into a river. What do you say?
"Oh... you dumped toxic waste in the river.. well... I forgive you."
That won't clean the river.
I prefer the approach of "Clean that up, and show me you've learned your lesson and THEN I might forgive you."
I don't feel obliged to forgive. When I forgive someone... I want everyone to know that they must have earned it.
On the other side of it... if I do something is wrong... I will apologize, make restitution where possible... but I won't even expect forgiveness then. If the person wants to offer it... then I'm happy... but I don't generally ask for it. I think that I shouldn't have done whatever I did wrong in the first place... that was my obligation in the "social contract".
Yes, we all make mistakes... we all do stupid things at one time or another... but I think we go overboard in expecting that it's okay. My assumption is that it's NOT okay to do wrong... and that if I do wrong... I'm lucky to be given forgiveness.
All this forgiveness floating around freely seems, in my mind... to encourage people to do the same things over and over... even when they know they are wrong. How many beaten wives forgive their husbands over and over, and get beaten over and over?
Sometimes... whatever the person did wrong isn't a big deal... they should not have to do a whole bunch in order to make up for it.
"Oh... I got pizza on your pentacle, I'm sorry"
And if something's just an accident, and didn't hurt anyone... well... don't be all militant about your forgiveness either!
Forgiveness should be like a blessing, a favor, a special thing that is given in love or earned through effort. It should not be, in my opinion, something we feel obliged to give freely.
Forgiveness is there for a reason. It has a purpose. I just don't think that purpose is fulfilled by handing it out frivolously. Forgiveness should be something special.
When we forgive someone... it allows them to move on. It can allow us to move on. It can tell them... I feel that it is worthwhile to forgive you. It can allow two people or two groups to put past differences aside so that they may build a better future. We can forgive someone because the price of NOT forgiving is too high. We can forgive in order to prevent bloodshed or hate or to make new understanding possible. We can offer our forgiveness as an incentive to others to be better people.
I don't think we should ever forgive when doing so will allow, advocate or encourage harm, to ourselves or to others. Especially to others. You can choose for yourself to let something happen to you if you want... that's your business... but please don't tell anyone that it's okay for them to hurt me... or anyone else who didn't make that decision.
I don't think we should forgive anyone who we feel will use that forgiveness as an excuse or motivation to do harm.
To me, all this is part of "an it harm none".
Note... this is all my opinion... my way of thinking... that works for me. Your mileage may vary. And it may not be the right way of thinking for all situations. I sound inflexible, but I'm not. And if I was... that doesn't mean you have to be.
War on our wallets you mean...
Our courts and jails are already taxed and inefficient. The "War on Drugs" has spent ridiculous amounts of money and resources attacking a problem that is dwarfed by other problems. Worse, the "War on Drugs" has been used as an excuse to insidiously chip away at basic civil rights and due process. I feel that while some good may have been done... far more ill has come of it. Worse... anyone that is against the "War on Drugs" is taken to be someone who is "for Drugs". If you feel the war on drugs is too extreme, you are made out to be some kind of evil person who believes children should be allowed to smoke crack.
No-one rational, I'm sure, wants their child (or adult relatives) to destroy their lives with drug abuse. However the tactic of painting anyone who opposes extreme legislation that is injurious to civil rights as "Pro Drug", seems to be widely used.
Needle-Exchange programs
Some people are against needle-exchange programs. As far as needle exchange, the sentiment, hidden under the guise of not "encouraging" drug use, seems to be "Let them kill themselves off with disease". Well... those "druggies" who catch diseases make it more likely that innocent people will end up with a disease. Each person infected is a possible vector for illness that otherwise would not have one. Many of these people have children that would be at risk of not only having a drug-abuser for a parent, but an infectious one.
Many drug abusers DO respond to help and treatment. Illness makes them less likely to get clean. Not only does it reduce quality of life so that drugs are more attractive, but it means, ultimately, that public funds will be spent on caring for drug abusers that ALSO have hepatitis, or other blood-borne diseases. That will be FAR more costly, and less humanitarian than a few needles. Drug users are GOING to use drugs. Period. Clean needles reduce the likelihood of disease transmission. They also provide a means of possible outreach. If they will accept a clean needle, they will sometimes be more receptive to the idea of recieving other forms of help.
Dangerous compared to what?
I do not do drugs. Nothing worse than coffee anyway. I do not like to feel impaired. I am leery of introducing foreign substances into my body. I even use _aspirin_ in moderation. I make an exception for coffee, because I enjoy coffee. I know its health dangers. Same can be said of everyone I've met that smokes pot.
But it seems to me that there are lots of things that are illegal, with DIRE punishments are prescribed for their use... that are relatively harmless. Sorry... I suspect that pot is no more dangerous than cigarettes OR alcohol. It may be less dangerous. And both of those killers are legal.
Marijuana, for instance, has medicinal uses, and does not itself promote violence that _I_ can see. (Trust me... I've seen plenty of people stoned... they are generally about as violent as mildew or other things that don't move). How many people have died from pot, and how many have died because it was illegal? Hmmm?
It's probably got uses for people with stress-related diseases... it can be used to great effect to control negative effects of chemotherapy, and can be used to treat glaucoma.
It's okay to give people chemicals with all sorts of side effects for stress-related disorders, but not pot? Why? Pot can be addicitve? So can the drugs that are prescribed. Pot has side effects? Hah! Those multisyllabic chemical monstrosities do not? I wish someone had given me pot to smoke instead of the antidepressants they gave me as a kid. I might be able to remember 8th grade.
Recreational Use
Does it hurt me if someone smokes a joint to get high? No more than it hurts me if they drink alcohol. Mushrooms? Who cares if someone wants to do mushrooms? I think there's a big difference between use and abuse. I don't do drugs, but MOST of my friends, especially the ones in college, have either experimented with them or do them on a regular basis. Some of them went through a phase where they overdid it... but they stopped when they realized it... and partly they slowed down when their friends, who could give them realistic and understanding advice, told them it was affecting them badly.
I think if someone does something illegal or stupid under the influence of any drug, legal or not... they should be punished. And should not get to use the excuse of "I was high on and didn't know what I was doing."
But... if they use them responsibly, and don't bother me... it's none of my business, now is it?
You want me to pee where?
I have refused work at several companies, because they wanted me to urinate in a cup or submit to some other drug test. I don't even _do_ drugs, but I'm not peeing in a cup to prove it. I think it's totally disrespectful to ask me to do so. I think it's demeaning and dehumanizing.
I've heard the argument "businesses lose lots of money to drug users every year". Well, if you cannot tell whether I abuse drugs by my actions, then I don't think they influence my actions enough for it to be any of your business.
And to sum up....
None of the people I know who have been harmed by drug use (directly or indirectly) were protected by the "Drug War". The illegality didn't stop them from taking drugs or being harmed by others. It's not working anyway folks. Wouldja mind spending my tax money on something useful? I don't mind paying taxes, I really don't. I just mind how they're spent.
I know an author... he writes beautiful stories... he is in jail for life because he had a joint in Ohio. More than once. Big deal. Not only is that a travesty and an injustice... but we all have to foot the bill for it. I feel like every year, I'm paying a little bit of my tax money to keep that guy in some horrible prison, and it makes me feel soiled. I don't want to be an accomplice to that.