I went with my family last night to see the movie “Inside-Out.” It was our weekend family fun activity. Overall I thought the movie was very good. A lot of animated emotions running around a young girl’s head, doing slapstick. Making all the mistakes you’d expect, and a few that might surprise you. It was basically Herman’s Head, for those of you who remember that show, with a modern twist. And that modern twist is a good part of the one real problem that I have with the movie.
The young girl in the movie, Riley, has essentially been controlled since birth by these emotions. Specifically: Joy, Sadness, Fear, Anger, and Disgust, with Joy taking the lead in most circumstances. It’s her job to keep Riley happy, and she takes her job very seriously. In the show Herman’s Head, the breakdown was a little different. There were four aspects controlling Herman’s responses: Lust, Sensitivity, Anxiety, and Intellect. The show was back in 1991, so if there was a single aspect of Herman’s personality running most of the show. I don’t recall. But even given that, the difference is notable.
In the more modern version, intellect is completely absent from the control center. There are core memories which are given credit for developing Riley’s personality. There are islands shown that are built on the importance of those memories. There is reference to a “train of thought” chugging away in the distance, though, what it does or why it’s there is never really addressed. When it comes to determining actions are responses, logic and reason are absent. Emotions run at all. For all the independent thought show, the emotions could just as easily be operating a chimpanzee, or a mouse, or a duck. Or a puppet. Maybe a puppet is most appropriate. Let’s face it: if you’re not going to think, than someone else’s really pulling the strings. The only real question is how they make you dance.
I understand that “Inside-Out” is just a movie, a fantasy for kids. From that standpoint, it’s a good movie. I have no problem with that. My problem is with the very real world attitude it reflects. The attitude that emotions are everything, that how we feel must determine how we act. The attitude that we have the right to inflict those emotions on those around us, regardless of cost or consequence. And the consequences are adding up.
Emotion doesn’t plan, doesn’t think, doesn’t take the long view. All of the priorities are immediate. Emotion does not delay gratification, and has little patience. Sustained high divorce rate, high illegitimacy, high abortion — all of these are responses, to some extent, of acting on a emotion. And, while all of us have some degree of empathy, emotion focuses largely on the self. Emotion does not care about the rights of others. So, if others lose their right to free speech, to act according to their conscience, to work or live, emotion finds a justification.
Emotion demands validation. The lawsuits regarding Christian businesses recently were not, as some insist, about combating discrimination. The people raising the suits approve of discrimination, and support it routinely for their own purposes. The lawsuits were about rage, rage against people that would not validate certain emotional choices. Because of that rage, those who would not bow had to be targeted, vilified, and destroyed if necessary as an example to others. And then on, to the next target.
In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul writes about a time when he reasoned as a child, and then had to grow and move beyond childish things. You can find the text in chapter thirteen of the first letter. That chapter is often referred to as “the love chapter” of the Bible, and I don’t think it was coincidence that placed the text there. I think it was very deliberate, because despite what many insist, love is not just emotion.
Love is a decision. Love is staying with a spouse through the bad times, trusting that the good times that once were can come again. Love is planning. Love is sticking with that job you hate to make ends meet while you look for something better, while you improve yourself. While you make an effort instead of waiting for something to be handed to you. Love is putting others first, like the child who is counting on you day in, day out, whether you “feel” like it not. Love does not just whisper sweet words on the honeymoon. Love says “‘Til death do us part,” and repeats it with the last breath.
Love is a commitment, the way God committed to loving you.
And because love is all of these things, and more, love lasts. The greatest civilizations of the past, the ones that built huge monuments and towers of stone, have all but vanished. That’s the way of earthly things. The strongest don’t last. How much more a society that gives ultimate weight to “feelings,” that come and go in minutes, that change based on the tone someone uses when saying “hello?”
I see parts of our society breaking down. I see it in Ferguson, in Charleston. I see it in those who riot and loot, and claim it is because they demand “justice.” I see it in the outsiders who are paid to go in and raise hatred and turmoil in places they don’t even live or work, and then move on. I see it in politicians who solve nothing, but strive constantly to get us to raise our hands against each other.
I still have faith that America can last, but not like this. The silent movie “Metropolis,” filmed in 1927 made the point that “the heart and the head need each other.” That’s still true today. It always has been. The question is can we embrace that truth in time, or will our entire nation find itself “inside-out?”
Saturday, June 20, 2015
Thursday, June 11, 2015
Consequences of a Flabby Conscience
There is a law in Greece. Possibly in some other countries in the Eurozone as well. Probably. A lot of the countries seem to have a number of philosophies in common.
It goes like this: The government supplies lots of benefits, but to receive them you need to meet certain requirements. One of the requirements is that you are employed if possible. I was right with them at that point, but the devil is always in the details. Sometimes, that phrase seems a bit more literal than others. Anyway... If you are not employed, the government will find you a job. If they find it, you have to take it. Otherwise, no benefits. Health care is one, I suppose. I'm sure there are other subsidies.
Of course, some of the jobs, though legal, are not particularly appealing. Sex worker, for example. It's a tidied up way of saying "prostitute," but it amounts to the same thing. It's a legal occupation in the country, so if that's what is available when your number comes up, that's what you have to take. If not, kiss everything from unemployment compensation on down goodbye.
That's significant, you see. Just because the profession is legal, doesn't make it desirable or respectable among the public. Lots of women (and possibly men, I haven't researched that aspect) are basically forced into it by the state. A lot of the women are married. Have children. And that isn't exactly the kind of thing you can hide from your family.
I think about that kind of decision being forced on women, and I get incensed, and at the same time I wonder...
I wonder how a vegetarian would feel about being forced to take a job in a slaughterhouse, or possibly starve.
I wonder how someone who is unalterably opposed to the death penalty would respond to being forced to throw the switch that powers the chair, or starts the poison...
I wonder how a member of Green Peace would respond to being forced to work as a lumber jack..
I wonder about all of those things, and honestly, I don't have a clue. No of those cases apply to me. Now, how a devout Christian baker, or photographer, or florist feels when forced to participate in a gay ceremony... That I can imagine. The difference between this case and the others, however, is stark. The forcing of the bakers and florists and photographers is real and legal. The others... not yet.
That's all we can say right now. Not yet. Those who claim that we must limit a person's ability to act, or refrain from action, based on conscience are overlooking a very basic principle: Governments have no conscience. There is no place that rules and laws that disregard the conscience cannot take us over time. The founding fathers recognized that. That's why they included in the Constitution an explicit amendment to ensure that, even though government had no conscience, men would, and that they would be able to act accordingly.
There's a reason that it's called the "free exercise" clause. The "free" part should be obvious. Without the ability to choose one's beliefs and morals, no other freedoms will last. And this is a freedom we are to "exercise." It doesn't stop in our homes, or churches. It is and was always meant to be a lasting part of the public square. That's an unpopular view right now, but an accurate one just the same.
There's more than a little irony at work here. Because of that right, because they were free to "exercise" their faith in the public square, Christians became the single substantial force for the abolition of slavery, eventually succeeding in eliminating it as a lawful institution in the west. And now, in our "more enlightened" times, as the left seeks to once again put people in chains, Christians are the first to be targeted. And they'll succeed, too, unless we all begin to take our "exercise" a good deal more seriously.
It goes like this: The government supplies lots of benefits, but to receive them you need to meet certain requirements. One of the requirements is that you are employed if possible. I was right with them at that point, but the devil is always in the details. Sometimes, that phrase seems a bit more literal than others. Anyway... If you are not employed, the government will find you a job. If they find it, you have to take it. Otherwise, no benefits. Health care is one, I suppose. I'm sure there are other subsidies.
Of course, some of the jobs, though legal, are not particularly appealing. Sex worker, for example. It's a tidied up way of saying "prostitute," but it amounts to the same thing. It's a legal occupation in the country, so if that's what is available when your number comes up, that's what you have to take. If not, kiss everything from unemployment compensation on down goodbye.
That's significant, you see. Just because the profession is legal, doesn't make it desirable or respectable among the public. Lots of women (and possibly men, I haven't researched that aspect) are basically forced into it by the state. A lot of the women are married. Have children. And that isn't exactly the kind of thing you can hide from your family.
I think about that kind of decision being forced on women, and I get incensed, and at the same time I wonder...
I wonder how a vegetarian would feel about being forced to take a job in a slaughterhouse, or possibly starve.
I wonder how someone who is unalterably opposed to the death penalty would respond to being forced to throw the switch that powers the chair, or starts the poison...
I wonder how a member of Green Peace would respond to being forced to work as a lumber jack..
I wonder about all of those things, and honestly, I don't have a clue. No of those cases apply to me. Now, how a devout Christian baker, or photographer, or florist feels when forced to participate in a gay ceremony... That I can imagine. The difference between this case and the others, however, is stark. The forcing of the bakers and florists and photographers is real and legal. The others... not yet.
That's all we can say right now. Not yet. Those who claim that we must limit a person's ability to act, or refrain from action, based on conscience are overlooking a very basic principle: Governments have no conscience. There is no place that rules and laws that disregard the conscience cannot take us over time. The founding fathers recognized that. That's why they included in the Constitution an explicit amendment to ensure that, even though government had no conscience, men would, and that they would be able to act accordingly.
There's a reason that it's called the "free exercise" clause. The "free" part should be obvious. Without the ability to choose one's beliefs and morals, no other freedoms will last. And this is a freedom we are to "exercise." It doesn't stop in our homes, or churches. It is and was always meant to be a lasting part of the public square. That's an unpopular view right now, but an accurate one just the same.
There's more than a little irony at work here. Because of that right, because they were free to "exercise" their faith in the public square, Christians became the single substantial force for the abolition of slavery, eventually succeeding in eliminating it as a lawful institution in the west. And now, in our "more enlightened" times, as the left seeks to once again put people in chains, Christians are the first to be targeted. And they'll succeed, too, unless we all begin to take our "exercise" a good deal more seriously.
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
A Cornucopia of Victims
Imagine finding yourself in a dream, walking down a very long hall. A man walks beside you, pleasant enough, but gently nudging you along, making sure you keep pace. This seems important, though you don’t really know why. After a moment, you notice a group of doorways beginning just ahead. There are no knobs on the outside, however. All are fastened shut securely with cross beams.
You reach the first doorway, and the man beside you stops. He indicates a small window set in the doorframe. You look, and see a hundred people or so. They are young, old, men, women, all manner of heights, and weights and races.
“Forty of these shall have excellent schools,” the man says. “Twenty will have fair schools. The rest will be placed in schools with bad teachers, or uncontrolled violence, or serious drug or disciplinary problems, and no one will help them. Choose.”
You find yourself taken aback. You have never heard of such a thing. “Why is it up to me?”
“It is how we do things,” the man says. “Choose. Or someone else will chose for you.”
Uneasily you make your choice, and then move on to the next door. Inside is a similar group.
“Fifty of these will be supported by taxpayers,” the man says. “The rest will work to support them. Choose.”
And there are more rooms.
“Twenty will get preference in college admissions. The rest will split up what is left. Choose.”
“Thirty will get health care paid for by the rest. Choose.”
“Seventy will get to decide their own career. The rest will be assigned. Choose.”
“Fifteen can commit crimes and they will be excused of responsibility. The rest will pay the price. Choose.”
“Forty will retain their right to free speech, to an attorney, to trial by jury. To discovery, to cross-examination. To face their accuser. The rest will have their fate decided by a judge, possibly with little or no training in the law. Choose.”
And so it goes until you find yourself at the last room. You take a look inside, and are relieved to find that it is empty. You look over to the man accompanying you.
“That was for deciding who was allowed to believe as they wished and exercise freedom of religion,” the man says. “We don’t use that one anymore.”
If this “dream” sounds like a nightmare to you, it should. And it is all the worse because it is a nightmare that we as a nation take effort to bring further and further into reality each day. For political expediency, the judges and the politicians deny justice, or even the right to due process to those groups out of favor. Mobs pillage, terrorizing the poor and innocent, and the police are restrained in the name of “racial justice.” We wallow over sins of the past, and deny rights and law to the innocent of the present.
Almost since the beginning of mankind, there has been no shortage of victims in the world. Some are victims of criminals. Some are victims of corrupt officials. Each one has a story, and each case is a tragedy, but in each story a ray of hope persists as long as the law remains to address the wrong. Yet now, our nation, and indeed much of the world, is embracing a new form of “justice,” one that states that for one group to receive justice, another must be denied. Two wrongs really do make a right, retribution against the innocent is not only acceptable, but preferable.
And as all of this proceeds, we find that the number of victims does not shrink. It grows. Only now these are not the victims of criminals. They are the victims of law with justice or restraint. They are the victims of everyone who decides in their heart that one person or group is worthy of more than they have, and then use the force of law to achieve it. And they are the victims of those who stand idly by, approving, watching as Saul did at the stoning of Stephen. And they are also the victims of those who do not approve, but still do nothing to stop it.
In this, they are my victims.
I don’t know how to address the ills of the past, as a nation or people. I don’t even know if that’s possible. I don’t know how to make law enforcement perfect, justice as impartial as it should be. In fact, I’m sure that’s not possible. This I do know: You cannot build a justice system that is better by picking and choosing who is deserving of the rights that should be guaranteed to all. You cannot make up for past thefts by taking from those who never stole. And you preserve a nation when you grant any person or group the right to wantonly destroy without consequence to themselves.
This is where we are heading, and we are frighteningly close. And I find that all I can do is pray for guidance from One who already knows where we shall end up. I encourage you all to do the same.
You reach the first doorway, and the man beside you stops. He indicates a small window set in the doorframe. You look, and see a hundred people or so. They are young, old, men, women, all manner of heights, and weights and races.
“Forty of these shall have excellent schools,” the man says. “Twenty will have fair schools. The rest will be placed in schools with bad teachers, or uncontrolled violence, or serious drug or disciplinary problems, and no one will help them. Choose.”
You find yourself taken aback. You have never heard of such a thing. “Why is it up to me?”
“It is how we do things,” the man says. “Choose. Or someone else will chose for you.”
Uneasily you make your choice, and then move on to the next door. Inside is a similar group.
“Fifty of these will be supported by taxpayers,” the man says. “The rest will work to support them. Choose.”
And there are more rooms.
“Twenty will get preference in college admissions. The rest will split up what is left. Choose.”
“Thirty will get health care paid for by the rest. Choose.”
“Seventy will get to decide their own career. The rest will be assigned. Choose.”
“Fifteen can commit crimes and they will be excused of responsibility. The rest will pay the price. Choose.”
“Forty will retain their right to free speech, to an attorney, to trial by jury. To discovery, to cross-examination. To face their accuser. The rest will have their fate decided by a judge, possibly with little or no training in the law. Choose.”
And so it goes until you find yourself at the last room. You take a look inside, and are relieved to find that it is empty. You look over to the man accompanying you.
“That was for deciding who was allowed to believe as they wished and exercise freedom of religion,” the man says. “We don’t use that one anymore.”
If this “dream” sounds like a nightmare to you, it should. And it is all the worse because it is a nightmare that we as a nation take effort to bring further and further into reality each day. For political expediency, the judges and the politicians deny justice, or even the right to due process to those groups out of favor. Mobs pillage, terrorizing the poor and innocent, and the police are restrained in the name of “racial justice.” We wallow over sins of the past, and deny rights and law to the innocent of the present.
Almost since the beginning of mankind, there has been no shortage of victims in the world. Some are victims of criminals. Some are victims of corrupt officials. Each one has a story, and each case is a tragedy, but in each story a ray of hope persists as long as the law remains to address the wrong. Yet now, our nation, and indeed much of the world, is embracing a new form of “justice,” one that states that for one group to receive justice, another must be denied. Two wrongs really do make a right, retribution against the innocent is not only acceptable, but preferable.
And as all of this proceeds, we find that the number of victims does not shrink. It grows. Only now these are not the victims of criminals. They are the victims of law with justice or restraint. They are the victims of everyone who decides in their heart that one person or group is worthy of more than they have, and then use the force of law to achieve it. And they are the victims of those who stand idly by, approving, watching as Saul did at the stoning of Stephen. And they are also the victims of those who do not approve, but still do nothing to stop it.
In this, they are my victims.
I don’t know how to address the ills of the past, as a nation or people. I don’t even know if that’s possible. I don’t know how to make law enforcement perfect, justice as impartial as it should be. In fact, I’m sure that’s not possible. This I do know: You cannot build a justice system that is better by picking and choosing who is deserving of the rights that should be guaranteed to all. You cannot make up for past thefts by taking from those who never stole. And you preserve a nation when you grant any person or group the right to wantonly destroy without consequence to themselves.
This is where we are heading, and we are frighteningly close. And I find that all I can do is pray for guidance from One who already knows where we shall end up. I encourage you all to do the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)