Just writing to get down some thoughts I have had over the years. I have heard the story of Peter walking on water more times than I can count. It is one of those stories that sticks in your head as a kid and never goes away.
The story is found in Matthew and goes like this:
Matthew 14:22-33
Immediately, Jesus made the disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowd. After he dismissed them, he went up on a mountainside by himself to pray. Later that night, he was there alone, and the boat was already a considerable distance from land, buffeted by the waves because the wind was against it. Shortly before dawn Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified.
"It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear.
But Jesus immediately said to them: "Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid."
"Lord, if it's you," replied Peter, "tell me to come to you on the water."
"Come, " he said. Then Peter got out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!"
Immediately, Jesus reached out his hand and caught him.
"You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?"
And when they climbed into the boat, the wind dies down. Then those who were in the boat worshiped him saying, "Truly, you are the Son of God."
As I have said, this story is very frequently told in christian circles. I mean, it has everything: miracles, the opportunity for a normal person to do the impossible, danger, etc. Interestingly enough, this version (which includes Peter) is only found in this one gospel. The other gospel writers apparently did not feel those details worth mentioning.
As a kid, I cannot count the number of times I heard the story explained this way: "So Peter stepped out on the water... and the storm was raging, and he saw the waves, and they scared him! Then, he took his eyes off of Jesus and was worried about the terrifying things going on around him. Because he lost his focus on Jesus and worried about the wind and the waves, he started to sink in the water!" The moral of the story is then: Keep your eyes on Jesus or you will sink!
I can see how the above is a wonderful way to explain the story to kids. It is clean and simple and very easy to remember. However, as I grew up cracks started to form in this perspective. The problem for me is an issue of control. As a kid, I simply didn't have the knowledge and life experience to even be aware of such things. But as an adult, I now do think about things more carefully. I am aware of a lot more, and I have problems with the traditional "Keep your eyes on Jesus or you will sink" interpretation of this passage.
To be clear, I have no problem at all with the first half of the statement. Of course I think people should look to Jesus, to God, for inspiration and guidance. This is true all of the time, though especially in life's more difficult times. I have nothing against "Keep your eyes on Jesus". Rather, I take issue with the second half... specifically that seemingly unimportant word "or". I cannot get behind the statement "Keep your eyes on Jesus OR you will sink."
The word "or" has a lot of meaning in such a statement. It creates a condition that must be met. It creates a power dynamic, en exchange of sorts. Consider the statement, "Give me your money or I will shoot you." In such a situation, what is the motivation to give your money away? The motivation becomes obvious in the statement. There is an exchange taking place in which you do something and something is granted to you. Having studied a lot about "if-then" and "conditional" statements, this jumps out at me. I dissect the statement and it reads like this:
- IF you don't keep your eyes on Jesus, THEN you will sink.
- IF you do keep your eyes on Jesus, THEN you will not sink.
That, to me, is the statement laid bare in all of its logical glory. It reads like a computer code now. Cause and effect are clearly laid out in these statements. The statement now reflects a very cut-and-dry view of things that I think aids people in entertaining a false sense of control over their lives.
Now, let's quickly consider the "you will sink" part of the statement. What does it refer to? Obviously, to Peter (in the story) it meant to drown in a storm at sea. But from childhood we are encouraged to read "between the lines" of scripture so that it more easily and directly applies to our lives. Perhaps "sinking" refers to failure? Sadness? Depression? Anxiety? Health? Tragedy? The list continues on. I also have no problem with creatively considering the alternate meanings a verse can have. But the combination of this creative thinking and the rigid functionality of the "or" creates a heady cocktail that can cause a lot of damage. It is, in fact, a lie.
Life is tough! It is unfair. Terrible things happen to people every day. They happen to good people and to bad people, men and women, young and old, Christians and non-Christians. The idea that "if I stay focused of Jesus" then I will be able to rise above life's struggles and "not sink" can be very inspirational but it is also a double-edged sword that ultimately reduces Christian faith to a basic transaction.
Consider where God is in the above equation? This belief relegates God to the role of "divine scorekeeper" who weighs your "focus" or "faith" and decides whether it is "enough" to keep you above the waves of life. How much is "enough" faith? How much is "enough" focus on Christ? 1 hour of daily bible study? Praying a rosary? Reciting the proper number of "Hail Mary's"? And thus, the relationship that many Christians have with God is quickly reduced to the simple question, "how much do you want for this?"
This "transactional" view of God also gives us a clear way to measure the faith of others.
John is getting a divorce?
Sam is struggling financially?
Amy struggles with anxiety?
The answer is simple: Just "keep your eyes on Jesus and you will stay above the waves."
And, of course, failure to overcome these challenges becomes a clear reflection of one's lack of faith. And so, Christian fellowship and encouragement is reduced to platitudes and self-righteous judgement.
Such a view of things is cruel and heartless.
To some, this dissecting of words and drawing broad conclusions about a simple bible story may seem to be nit-picking. I understand that view. I certainly could not ask that my childhood self consider these ideas. On the other hand, words really do matter. They are used to build meanings that have big consequences.
So, back to the story: What if there is no causal relationship added over the top of things? What if Peter didn't actually cause himself to sink at all? What if his fear was not really an important factor in the equation? The text never specifically says "because". Rather, we read, "But he saw the wind and was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out 'Lord, save me.'"
The story of Peter walking on the water is much more meaningful to me when I specifically avoid causal thinking. Peter is sinking. This is due to things beyond his control. He is afraid. He calls out for help and is helps. He is then asked to have more faith... but this is not because enough faith would have fixed his problems. Rather, he is being asked to have faith despite the problems, even as he is sinking beneath the waves. After all, Jesus is right there with him.
This also better models how we Christians are to treat others. When someone is truly suffering, platitudes about faith are not the answer. Rather, people need someone to "be with them" through life's suffering and pain. We must also fight the impulse to decide in our hearts that someone is the cause of their own difficulty. Perhaps they are. Perhaps they are not. Almost certainly, it is not that simple. But as long as we are focused on laying the "proper" amount of responsibility on their shoulders, we are not truly "being there" with them and all. That is not love, but judgement.
The idea that we can control anything about our lives using our faith or our relationship with God is, in my opinion, a lie that cheapens the Christian faith. It treats people as though they have far more power that they actually do, laying a heavy burden on their shoulders that they were never meant to carry. It also treats God as a heartless score-keeper who has no real agency. In the power-based culture of the west, such views are easy to fall into and often taken for granted. God is bigger than that. God has much more to offer. People have much more to receive. We cannot control as much as we think, but we do not actually need to control as much as we think. Rather, realizing that God is with us during the truly hard times may be what we truly need.
Saturday, May 2, 2020
Tuesday, July 17, 2018
Why I'm Pro-Life but I vote Pro-Choice
I am writing this post because it is a very important issue to me. Also, I know a lot of people to whom the issue of abortion is central to their political leanings. Some feel that abortion is the greatest genocide in human history and wish to stop it from happening by making abortion illegal. Others consider abortion a human right and feel that those threatening a woman's choice are attempting to rob them of the rights that women have worked hard to achieve. I really wish dialogue were more possible as someone who often feels stuck between these two positions. In this post, I hope to portray both sides in the best light possible and give my own reasons for the choices that I make.
The issue of abortion has been a big part of my reality from childhood. My family is a conservative Christian one and my mother worked as a labor and delivery nurse. I remember going to right to life rallies as a child at our state capitol. I remember protesting (standing quietly with signs to respect the lives of the unborn) outside abortion clinics. I learned when a heart of a baby started beating (as early as 3 weeks after conception), when it had a nervous system and could feel pain (the pain inflicted by the abortion procedure), etc. I also heard stories of aborted babies who were still alive being killed or put into the trash. I have also heard many testimonials by adults who have survived botched abortions.
That is the upbringing I have had. Based on my background, here are two things that must be understood about most pro-life people:
First, they are completely in earnest. They believe that babies are living people and are heart-broken about the deaths of so many millions of people. Just imagine if you knew that a genocide of millions each year was going on in the world (say, in Syria) and the people around you never talked it. If you mentioned it, they generally ignored and minimized your concerns, refusing to acknowledge the hideous nature of the genocide. Every time they discussed a small tragedy that took human lives (like a school shooting), you would want to say, "yes I am sad for the 30 people who died in that tragedy but what about the millions of people continually dying in Syria?" but people kept ignoring you. Really imagine that to the best of your ability for a second, sitting with the feeling because unless you understand that feeling, you will never understand the motivation and sense of urgency that the pro-life movement has.
Second, the vast majority of pro-life people are not trying to take away women's rights or maintain a patriarchal society. Some opponents argue that the pro-life stance does get rid of women's rights. For example, they may argue that a raped woman should not have to carry the child forced upon them by a rapist. I will not be arguing against such a claim here. My point is not that, in effect, a pro-life stance takes away women's rights. Rather, I want to say that the intention of the pro-life movement is to save human lives, pure and simple. There is no hidden "take women's rights away" agenda to this movement and none should be attributed to it. So if you are an advocate of women's rights and pro-choice, it is dishonest to say "These pro-life voters want to take away my rights!" A truer statement, and one that will better allow for dialogue is, "These pro-life voters are trying to stop people from killing fetuses. I think that infringes on my rights."
You will notice that I generally don't use the word fetus in this post. Then again, I did say I was pro-life in the title. The argument about what it is a baby versus what it is a fetus is to me an impossible argument of semantics. I know that medically, they are called a fetus inside the mother. I also know that the Trump administration is trying to get the scientific community controlled by the state to begin using the word baby instead of fetus. To pro-life people, the use of the word 'fetus' is often considered a way to objectify the baby so that is easier to kill, just like we have historically done in wars with other races (like "krauts" and "towel-heads"). I do not support this debate and find it counterproductive. I will call them unborn babies. You can call them fetuses if you like. I will not assume that means you are purposely dehumanizing them.
The crux of the matter is not whether people used the word "fetus" or "unborn baby". The crux of the matter is that the pro-life stance insists on not killing these babies and the pro-choice stance insists that the rights of a woman are taken away when they are forced to carry fetuses to term. But there is one more important factor to consider: the court system.
Our court system is often very hard for people to understand. They think it is a moral place. It is not. They think that is where justice is done. It is not. The primary goal of the court system is to convict those who break a law (which people in that country implicitly accept) and punish them in a way deemed appropriate. To that end, the purpose of the court is not and has never been to protect babies, women, or anyone else. Rather, we pass laws that we feel will protect us and the court upholds those laws by doling out punishment to those who break the laws. It is actually a rather heartless process and that is kind of the whole point of the modern justice system! They are trying to get rid of personal vendettas by being cold and impersonal. In earlier civilizations, revenge was a very real thing and acceptable arm of the law. Before there were strong central governments, people would often retaliate to manslaughter with murder. If you are a bible-reading person, you can see that holds true of the early Jewish society and their use of "cities of refuge". Such things were very common all around the world... that is until societies got bigger. As governments grew, it became less and less acceptable to have people running around killing each other in revenge. So larger societies passed laws like "Nobody kills anybody else." So now, if someone hits your child with their car, you are not allowed to kill them in revenge. Rather, you trust the state to punish them. If you do take revenge, then you will be punished too. Not because they didn't deserve it (thought they may not) but because it is the job of courts to punish.
So what does this have to do with abortion? Our court system is not designed to protect anyone, including the unborn. It is only designed to punish those who break laws. Trying to prevent abortion using our justice system is like trying to comb your hair with a butcher knife. It's just the wrong tool for the job.
As an example, let's imagine a world where the unborn are granted full human rights, completely equal to all other humans. Obviously abortion would now be illegal because that is killing another human being. Great from a pro-life perspective, right? Well, there are a few problems that would rise to the top in our court system. Abortion is legally murder (a phrase that I have heard since childhood here in the pro-life crowd) in this imaginary world. Within the justice system, people have to be punished for murder. Abortions are pre-meditated so this would be 1st degree murder. It is the mother who committed the crime by planning and choosing to carry out the murder so she would be charged with 1st degree murder. In Florida, that carries a penalty of life in prison or the death penalty. Can you imagine giving a 18-year-old girl life in prison for aborting her baby? That is what our court system would require if the unborn were granted rights equal human rights with everyone else.
In addition, we would not punish any child for the decision of their father to rape someone, would we? That child has the same rights as everyone else, regardless of who their father was. So rape is not, in this imagined world, a good excuse for abortion.
Then there are pregnancies that threaten the health of the mother... I suppose that an abortion in this case would be self-defense but the mother would likely have to show that the child threatened her life. Can you imagine making a heartbroken mother (who wanted to have a baby but was required to abort for health reasons) testify/prove to a court that she had to kill her own baby because her life depended on it?
Now I am not a legal expert but this is just a thought exercise and hypothetical exploration of how our justice system works. This is what is meant by"Justice is Blind"! In our justice system (in this imaginary world) a woman who has multiple abortions is not dissimilar to a serial killer. Our system does not see beyond the letter of the law. To me, this picture of equal human rights for babies under the law is not acceptable. That is not because I consider the lives of the unborn less precious and valuable. That is because the justice system is designed to dispassionately punish those who break the law. It really does not protect the innocent... it just punishes the guilty. Which leads us to another fact in this ideal world: Abortions would not stop!
Abortion is an extremely old practice; and before people figured out how to abort babies, there was regular infanticide. Even in modern America, abortion was occurring a lot right up until Roe V Wade. Just go back and watch "Dirty Dancing" or "Grease"... these things happened in the 50s and 60s often! To criminalize abortion would not stop it because it never did in the past. In fact, if you look at the statistics you will find the US abortion rate currently at its lowest point in recorded history! When Roe V Wade happened, the government began taking records of the abortion rate in the US. The abortion rate started at about 16%. That is 16 unborn babies out of 100 were killed that year. By the 80s, it had almost doubled to 29%. Then the abortion rate steadily dropped down to 14% by 2014. It is likely even lower today.
https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/images/trendsinabortiongraph.png
We have no earlier data on abortion, of course, but a decent argument can be made that there were more abortions (per capita) back before Roe V Wade than there are today! As a pro-life person, I am very happy about that! I really want to know (and have tried to study) what factors made the rate drop since those factors saved millions of unborn babies from being killed. I am rather befuddled that most of my pro-life friends don't feel the same way. They tend to say "It is still not enough." and demand the legal criminalization of abortion and full human rights for the unborn. While I understand the sentiment, the logic of such a stance is confounding. I am suggesting that there are other factors that are more effective at preventing abortion than its criminalization. So why are pro-life people focused on that one factor so exclusively?
I do not have the answer to the question above and will not try to guess it. Instead, I will discuss another effect of the criminalization of abortion. I have already mentioned that it could be rather hard on the mothers involved. I cannot imagine a teenager facing jail time for an abortion. However, in such a situation many affluent families would simply travel outside the country (or state) to have an abortion. That is a fact that cannot be denied. In fact, those arguing to overturn Roe V Wade regularly cite that people would still have access to abortion within those states which allow it. But we must think deeper than that. Yes, some would be able to afford such a trip but others would not. Those without the money, transportation, etc. would be stuck and have to choose between illegal abortions and carrying to term. It is sometimes hard for people like me who live in the suburbs, own cars, and go on vacations to realize but there are plenty of people who are stuck in a rough place, who cannot take a weekend and drive to another state, who cannot take the day off of work, who don't own a car, or who cannot legally drive. These people largely live in low-income neighborhoods. So this population would be affected in two ways. First, these poor people would be far more likely to seek illegal (and less safe) abortions in their area. This was common before Roe V Wade. Second, these poor people would disproportionately carry to term, meaning that a larger proportion the babies born in the US would be born into poverty. This is still quite common in some areas of the US. And let's not forget that the national abortion rate is already lower than when it was illegal to have an abortion! No one can actually predict how much criminalization would even affect the current abortion rate?
So I estimate that these would be effects of the criminalization of abortion:
1. No major affect on the number of abortions that US citizens actually get.
2. A larger number of deaths from illegal abortions that were done in improper facilities.
3. The possible locking up young women for "murder" of their unborn children.
4. A larger portion of newborns that are born into poverty
Based on my assessment, the decision to overturn Roe V Wade is a clear decision. Criminalizing abortion has far too many costs with no guaranteed positive outcome. My goal is to save babies' lives, not punish the poor or the women who are seeking abortions. To me, the use of our judicial system to remedy this situation is pointless. The judicial system cannot and will not save the lives of babies. It will only punish the women seeking abortions. Therefore I, as a pro-life Christian, cannot in good conscience simply "vote pro-life" with reference to the Roe V Wade decision. I honestly don't think that overturning Roe V Wade would save many unborn babies and I am much more interested in saving the lives of babies than in punishing perpetrators.
And here, I have good news: As soon as I stop trying to criminalize abortion I actually have a lot in common with the pro-choice crowd. I have quite a few pro-choice friends and here is something that should be know about people who are pro-choice: They are not interested in killing babies!... like, at all! They are primarily interested in the rights of young women and the rights of the poor. Beyond that, there are lots of conversations to be had about how to kill fewer babies. Here are some examples:
1. I have heard from many pro-choice friends about how difficult a decision about abortion can be. Often, young women go through this process with little support. That is a travesty. What if free counseling were provided, or even required, when seeking an abortion? Some young women may just need to talk through things. Others may need to discuss abusive relationships that led to the abortion. Others may want to keep the baby and have to deal with outside pressure to abort. I think that such a service would be a very healthy thing for our society and its women. I don't think anyone would disagree with such a policy if it were framed right and trusted to professionals who could be trusted by those on both sides of the abortion debate to be impartial. This would save the lives of unborn as well by helping women navigate some of the emotional, relationship, and other societal pressures that may have led to the situation they find themselves in. Counseling could help these women learn from past choices so they don't find themselves in need of an abortion in the future. So women who are often in very difficult situations are provided with much needed counseling which leads to fewer abortions in the future. That is a win/win as far as I can see!
2. I have heard that the adoption process is a long and expensive one. I have not looked into it a great but I feel that there should not be an unwanted child in America while there is a loving family that wants a child. From my limited reading, it looks as though an increasing number of children are adopted from other countries. The number of children put up for adoption in this country has actually dropped along with the abortion rate. What if there were programs funded by pro-life people to help with the $20,000 adoption fees from other countries? That would be a way to better value human lives and give people other viable options to abortion.
3. What if we provided better healthcare for uninsured mothers-to-be? I cannot prove it but I imagine that an abortion is very tempting when compared to thousands of dollars of medical bills. If people are truly pro-life, it would be nice if we put our money where our mouth is. Do you value human lives enough to pay medical bills for young mothers? If not, then I don't consider you pro-life. You are just looking for someone to punish. Start looking for someone to help! I would 100% support social programs that help with medical bills of pregnant mothers!
4. Once a baby is born, it needs some stability. Many young mothers may be single or uneducated. They cannot adequately provide for their child. They sometimes have no family support themselves. We need people and programs to support them, help them get educated, and help them learn parenting skills. It amazes me how many of those who identify as pro-life do not support such programs. I would like to point out that since the beginning of civilization, infanticide (and later, abortion) have been tied to a mothers lack of resources. Maybe if young mothers were given the resources they require, they would be less likely to seek an abortion.
5. Education about sex. I have talked with pro-life friends who want to shelter their kids from sex as long as possible. I respect that. For the most part, that works because such parents are often loving and supportive and in-touch with the needs of their children. However, statistically kids are experimenting with sex earlier and earlier. I see this first hand as a teacher. They need to know the risks. They need to know how to be in respectful relationships. They need to know about consent. Sex education really is a must for the vast majority of kids by the time they enter middle school. If you are a parent who doesn't trust a school to educate your child about sex, you should have the talk by then as well. Otherwise, you run the risk of inadvertently communicating to your child that they can't talk about sex with you. They may explore in secret or be ashamed of things that they hear or experience and leave you in the dark. If you are a parent, good luck with that and keep in mind that for your one lucky child there are 5-10 other kids who are trying to figure out sex on their own... they really do need sex ed.
6. Contraception. It never fails to amaze me that the conservative pro-life community does not support contraception more. They are often the group most vocal about STDs and teen pregnancy. Countless studies have shown that these two things are more likely to happen when people fail to practice "safe sex". The false narrative that condoms make people more likely to have sex needs to stop. People have been having sex since the beginning of time. But condoms do prevent unplanned pregnancy, which prevents abortions. And I am pro-life so lets start handing out condoms! ;-)
Also, birth control. If a girl is thinking of having sex, perhaps she could have free access to birth control! I understand the argument against this as well... but guess what, more birth control means fewer abortions! So I support it!
7. Combining #6 and #5... and possibly #1.... what if there were a facility where people could see a counselor, learn about sex in the absence of family guidance, and get free access to birth control and contraception? They could even throw in free annual exams for women! What I am describing is nearly identical to many Planned Parenthood (PP) clinics. While PP it does provide abortions, it also provides many services that minimize the number of abortions that happen. Pro-life people must understand that people at PP don't go home and brag about how many abortions they managed in a day. They are not interested in killing babies! My wife and I used PP regularly when we were uninsured in college... never got an abortion. We avoided quite a few unplanned pregnancies though so the issue of abortion never came up. In fact, one could easily argue that PP actually helps people avoid far more abortions (through other services) than it provides in the end.
These are the things that I vote for as a pro-life person. From the experiences I have had, the people I have met, and the sources I have read, the above factors have affected the abortion rate, bringing it down to the lowest it has been in recorded history. I think that through education, social supports, and access to contraception, we can really minimize the need for (and number of) abortions. While I am pro-life would love to protect all of the unborn, I don't think that it is realistic to ever expect abortions to stop. I certainly don't think that criminalization of abortion will stop it from happening. So I choose to make my primary focus saving the lives of the babies, not punishing people for crimes. This puts me into the odd position of voting against things most "pro-life" people vote for. I am at peace with that. In fact, it feels nice to have metrics other than Roe V Wade to measure politicians with.
If you are pro-life, consider these thoughts. You may not agree with me about all of it. That is fine. What do you agree with and why? What don't you agree with and why? I personally think that overall it is a good respectful and loving way to handle an issue that I care deeply about. Thanks for taking the time to read my thoughts!
The issue of abortion has been a big part of my reality from childhood. My family is a conservative Christian one and my mother worked as a labor and delivery nurse. I remember going to right to life rallies as a child at our state capitol. I remember protesting (standing quietly with signs to respect the lives of the unborn) outside abortion clinics. I learned when a heart of a baby started beating (as early as 3 weeks after conception), when it had a nervous system and could feel pain (the pain inflicted by the abortion procedure), etc. I also heard stories of aborted babies who were still alive being killed or put into the trash. I have also heard many testimonials by adults who have survived botched abortions.
That is the upbringing I have had. Based on my background, here are two things that must be understood about most pro-life people:
First, they are completely in earnest. They believe that babies are living people and are heart-broken about the deaths of so many millions of people. Just imagine if you knew that a genocide of millions each year was going on in the world (say, in Syria) and the people around you never talked it. If you mentioned it, they generally ignored and minimized your concerns, refusing to acknowledge the hideous nature of the genocide. Every time they discussed a small tragedy that took human lives (like a school shooting), you would want to say, "yes I am sad for the 30 people who died in that tragedy but what about the millions of people continually dying in Syria?" but people kept ignoring you. Really imagine that to the best of your ability for a second, sitting with the feeling because unless you understand that feeling, you will never understand the motivation and sense of urgency that the pro-life movement has.
Second, the vast majority of pro-life people are not trying to take away women's rights or maintain a patriarchal society. Some opponents argue that the pro-life stance does get rid of women's rights. For example, they may argue that a raped woman should not have to carry the child forced upon them by a rapist. I will not be arguing against such a claim here. My point is not that, in effect, a pro-life stance takes away women's rights. Rather, I want to say that the intention of the pro-life movement is to save human lives, pure and simple. There is no hidden "take women's rights away" agenda to this movement and none should be attributed to it. So if you are an advocate of women's rights and pro-choice, it is dishonest to say "These pro-life voters want to take away my rights!" A truer statement, and one that will better allow for dialogue is, "These pro-life voters are trying to stop people from killing fetuses. I think that infringes on my rights."
You will notice that I generally don't use the word fetus in this post. Then again, I did say I was pro-life in the title. The argument about what it is a baby versus what it is a fetus is to me an impossible argument of semantics. I know that medically, they are called a fetus inside the mother. I also know that the Trump administration is trying to get the scientific community controlled by the state to begin using the word baby instead of fetus. To pro-life people, the use of the word 'fetus' is often considered a way to objectify the baby so that is easier to kill, just like we have historically done in wars with other races (like "krauts" and "towel-heads"). I do not support this debate and find it counterproductive. I will call them unborn babies. You can call them fetuses if you like. I will not assume that means you are purposely dehumanizing them.
The crux of the matter is not whether people used the word "fetus" or "unborn baby". The crux of the matter is that the pro-life stance insists on not killing these babies and the pro-choice stance insists that the rights of a woman are taken away when they are forced to carry fetuses to term. But there is one more important factor to consider: the court system.
Our court system is often very hard for people to understand. They think it is a moral place. It is not. They think that is where justice is done. It is not. The primary goal of the court system is to convict those who break a law (which people in that country implicitly accept) and punish them in a way deemed appropriate. To that end, the purpose of the court is not and has never been to protect babies, women, or anyone else. Rather, we pass laws that we feel will protect us and the court upholds those laws by doling out punishment to those who break the laws. It is actually a rather heartless process and that is kind of the whole point of the modern justice system! They are trying to get rid of personal vendettas by being cold and impersonal. In earlier civilizations, revenge was a very real thing and acceptable arm of the law. Before there were strong central governments, people would often retaliate to manslaughter with murder. If you are a bible-reading person, you can see that holds true of the early Jewish society and their use of "cities of refuge". Such things were very common all around the world... that is until societies got bigger. As governments grew, it became less and less acceptable to have people running around killing each other in revenge. So larger societies passed laws like "Nobody kills anybody else." So now, if someone hits your child with their car, you are not allowed to kill them in revenge. Rather, you trust the state to punish them. If you do take revenge, then you will be punished too. Not because they didn't deserve it (thought they may not) but because it is the job of courts to punish.
So what does this have to do with abortion? Our court system is not designed to protect anyone, including the unborn. It is only designed to punish those who break laws. Trying to prevent abortion using our justice system is like trying to comb your hair with a butcher knife. It's just the wrong tool for the job.
As an example, let's imagine a world where the unborn are granted full human rights, completely equal to all other humans. Obviously abortion would now be illegal because that is killing another human being. Great from a pro-life perspective, right? Well, there are a few problems that would rise to the top in our court system. Abortion is legally murder (a phrase that I have heard since childhood here in the pro-life crowd) in this imaginary world. Within the justice system, people have to be punished for murder. Abortions are pre-meditated so this would be 1st degree murder. It is the mother who committed the crime by planning and choosing to carry out the murder so she would be charged with 1st degree murder. In Florida, that carries a penalty of life in prison or the death penalty. Can you imagine giving a 18-year-old girl life in prison for aborting her baby? That is what our court system would require if the unborn were granted rights equal human rights with everyone else.
In addition, we would not punish any child for the decision of their father to rape someone, would we? That child has the same rights as everyone else, regardless of who their father was. So rape is not, in this imagined world, a good excuse for abortion.
Then there are pregnancies that threaten the health of the mother... I suppose that an abortion in this case would be self-defense but the mother would likely have to show that the child threatened her life. Can you imagine making a heartbroken mother (who wanted to have a baby but was required to abort for health reasons) testify/prove to a court that she had to kill her own baby because her life depended on it?
Now I am not a legal expert but this is just a thought exercise and hypothetical exploration of how our justice system works. This is what is meant by"Justice is Blind"! In our justice system (in this imaginary world) a woman who has multiple abortions is not dissimilar to a serial killer. Our system does not see beyond the letter of the law. To me, this picture of equal human rights for babies under the law is not acceptable. That is not because I consider the lives of the unborn less precious and valuable. That is because the justice system is designed to dispassionately punish those who break the law. It really does not protect the innocent... it just punishes the guilty. Which leads us to another fact in this ideal world: Abortions would not stop!
Abortion is an extremely old practice; and before people figured out how to abort babies, there was regular infanticide. Even in modern America, abortion was occurring a lot right up until Roe V Wade. Just go back and watch "Dirty Dancing" or "Grease"... these things happened in the 50s and 60s often! To criminalize abortion would not stop it because it never did in the past. In fact, if you look at the statistics you will find the US abortion rate currently at its lowest point in recorded history! When Roe V Wade happened, the government began taking records of the abortion rate in the US. The abortion rate started at about 16%. That is 16 unborn babies out of 100 were killed that year. By the 80s, it had almost doubled to 29%. Then the abortion rate steadily dropped down to 14% by 2014. It is likely even lower today.
https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/images/trendsinabortiongraph.png
We have no earlier data on abortion, of course, but a decent argument can be made that there were more abortions (per capita) back before Roe V Wade than there are today! As a pro-life person, I am very happy about that! I really want to know (and have tried to study) what factors made the rate drop since those factors saved millions of unborn babies from being killed. I am rather befuddled that most of my pro-life friends don't feel the same way. They tend to say "It is still not enough." and demand the legal criminalization of abortion and full human rights for the unborn. While I understand the sentiment, the logic of such a stance is confounding. I am suggesting that there are other factors that are more effective at preventing abortion than its criminalization. So why are pro-life people focused on that one factor so exclusively?
I do not have the answer to the question above and will not try to guess it. Instead, I will discuss another effect of the criminalization of abortion. I have already mentioned that it could be rather hard on the mothers involved. I cannot imagine a teenager facing jail time for an abortion. However, in such a situation many affluent families would simply travel outside the country (or state) to have an abortion. That is a fact that cannot be denied. In fact, those arguing to overturn Roe V Wade regularly cite that people would still have access to abortion within those states which allow it. But we must think deeper than that. Yes, some would be able to afford such a trip but others would not. Those without the money, transportation, etc. would be stuck and have to choose between illegal abortions and carrying to term. It is sometimes hard for people like me who live in the suburbs, own cars, and go on vacations to realize but there are plenty of people who are stuck in a rough place, who cannot take a weekend and drive to another state, who cannot take the day off of work, who don't own a car, or who cannot legally drive. These people largely live in low-income neighborhoods. So this population would be affected in two ways. First, these poor people would be far more likely to seek illegal (and less safe) abortions in their area. This was common before Roe V Wade. Second, these poor people would disproportionately carry to term, meaning that a larger proportion the babies born in the US would be born into poverty. This is still quite common in some areas of the US. And let's not forget that the national abortion rate is already lower than when it was illegal to have an abortion! No one can actually predict how much criminalization would even affect the current abortion rate?
So I estimate that these would be effects of the criminalization of abortion:
1. No major affect on the number of abortions that US citizens actually get.
2. A larger number of deaths from illegal abortions that were done in improper facilities.
3. The possible locking up young women for "murder" of their unborn children.
4. A larger portion of newborns that are born into poverty
Based on my assessment, the decision to overturn Roe V Wade is a clear decision. Criminalizing abortion has far too many costs with no guaranteed positive outcome. My goal is to save babies' lives, not punish the poor or the women who are seeking abortions. To me, the use of our judicial system to remedy this situation is pointless. The judicial system cannot and will not save the lives of babies. It will only punish the women seeking abortions. Therefore I, as a pro-life Christian, cannot in good conscience simply "vote pro-life" with reference to the Roe V Wade decision. I honestly don't think that overturning Roe V Wade would save many unborn babies and I am much more interested in saving the lives of babies than in punishing perpetrators.
And here, I have good news: As soon as I stop trying to criminalize abortion I actually have a lot in common with the pro-choice crowd. I have quite a few pro-choice friends and here is something that should be know about people who are pro-choice: They are not interested in killing babies!... like, at all! They are primarily interested in the rights of young women and the rights of the poor. Beyond that, there are lots of conversations to be had about how to kill fewer babies. Here are some examples:
1. I have heard from many pro-choice friends about how difficult a decision about abortion can be. Often, young women go through this process with little support. That is a travesty. What if free counseling were provided, or even required, when seeking an abortion? Some young women may just need to talk through things. Others may need to discuss abusive relationships that led to the abortion. Others may want to keep the baby and have to deal with outside pressure to abort. I think that such a service would be a very healthy thing for our society and its women. I don't think anyone would disagree with such a policy if it were framed right and trusted to professionals who could be trusted by those on both sides of the abortion debate to be impartial. This would save the lives of unborn as well by helping women navigate some of the emotional, relationship, and other societal pressures that may have led to the situation they find themselves in. Counseling could help these women learn from past choices so they don't find themselves in need of an abortion in the future. So women who are often in very difficult situations are provided with much needed counseling which leads to fewer abortions in the future. That is a win/win as far as I can see!
2. I have heard that the adoption process is a long and expensive one. I have not looked into it a great but I feel that there should not be an unwanted child in America while there is a loving family that wants a child. From my limited reading, it looks as though an increasing number of children are adopted from other countries. The number of children put up for adoption in this country has actually dropped along with the abortion rate. What if there were programs funded by pro-life people to help with the $20,000 adoption fees from other countries? That would be a way to better value human lives and give people other viable options to abortion.
3. What if we provided better healthcare for uninsured mothers-to-be? I cannot prove it but I imagine that an abortion is very tempting when compared to thousands of dollars of medical bills. If people are truly pro-life, it would be nice if we put our money where our mouth is. Do you value human lives enough to pay medical bills for young mothers? If not, then I don't consider you pro-life. You are just looking for someone to punish. Start looking for someone to help! I would 100% support social programs that help with medical bills of pregnant mothers!
4. Once a baby is born, it needs some stability. Many young mothers may be single or uneducated. They cannot adequately provide for their child. They sometimes have no family support themselves. We need people and programs to support them, help them get educated, and help them learn parenting skills. It amazes me how many of those who identify as pro-life do not support such programs. I would like to point out that since the beginning of civilization, infanticide (and later, abortion) have been tied to a mothers lack of resources. Maybe if young mothers were given the resources they require, they would be less likely to seek an abortion.
5. Education about sex. I have talked with pro-life friends who want to shelter their kids from sex as long as possible. I respect that. For the most part, that works because such parents are often loving and supportive and in-touch with the needs of their children. However, statistically kids are experimenting with sex earlier and earlier. I see this first hand as a teacher. They need to know the risks. They need to know how to be in respectful relationships. They need to know about consent. Sex education really is a must for the vast majority of kids by the time they enter middle school. If you are a parent who doesn't trust a school to educate your child about sex, you should have the talk by then as well. Otherwise, you run the risk of inadvertently communicating to your child that they can't talk about sex with you. They may explore in secret or be ashamed of things that they hear or experience and leave you in the dark. If you are a parent, good luck with that and keep in mind that for your one lucky child there are 5-10 other kids who are trying to figure out sex on their own... they really do need sex ed.
6. Contraception. It never fails to amaze me that the conservative pro-life community does not support contraception more. They are often the group most vocal about STDs and teen pregnancy. Countless studies have shown that these two things are more likely to happen when people fail to practice "safe sex". The false narrative that condoms make people more likely to have sex needs to stop. People have been having sex since the beginning of time. But condoms do prevent unplanned pregnancy, which prevents abortions. And I am pro-life so lets start handing out condoms! ;-)
Also, birth control. If a girl is thinking of having sex, perhaps she could have free access to birth control! I understand the argument against this as well... but guess what, more birth control means fewer abortions! So I support it!
7. Combining #6 and #5... and possibly #1.... what if there were a facility where people could see a counselor, learn about sex in the absence of family guidance, and get free access to birth control and contraception? They could even throw in free annual exams for women! What I am describing is nearly identical to many Planned Parenthood (PP) clinics. While PP it does provide abortions, it also provides many services that minimize the number of abortions that happen. Pro-life people must understand that people at PP don't go home and brag about how many abortions they managed in a day. They are not interested in killing babies! My wife and I used PP regularly when we were uninsured in college... never got an abortion. We avoided quite a few unplanned pregnancies though so the issue of abortion never came up. In fact, one could easily argue that PP actually helps people avoid far more abortions (through other services) than it provides in the end.
These are the things that I vote for as a pro-life person. From the experiences I have had, the people I have met, and the sources I have read, the above factors have affected the abortion rate, bringing it down to the lowest it has been in recorded history. I think that through education, social supports, and access to contraception, we can really minimize the need for (and number of) abortions. While I am pro-life would love to protect all of the unborn, I don't think that it is realistic to ever expect abortions to stop. I certainly don't think that criminalization of abortion will stop it from happening. So I choose to make my primary focus saving the lives of the babies, not punishing people for crimes. This puts me into the odd position of voting against things most "pro-life" people vote for. I am at peace with that. In fact, it feels nice to have metrics other than Roe V Wade to measure politicians with.
If you are pro-life, consider these thoughts. You may not agree with me about all of it. That is fine. What do you agree with and why? What don't you agree with and why? I personally think that overall it is a good respectful and loving way to handle an issue that I care deeply about. Thanks for taking the time to read my thoughts!
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
Fear and power
During this difficult time in American politics, I have come to embrace a theory about fear and power. I think that the choices people make when in a state of fear will always give power to another. I initially came to this idea when considering the republican party. As I thought about it more, I felt it was a sound idea when applied in many situations.
We live in a very polarized time politically. I do not think it is a particularly unique moment with reference to polarization as it is human to be polarized, just as it is human to err. But the discourse has been filled with fear, in the Republican camp particularly. I hear from conservative friends fears about the affect of Muslim immigrants on American society, the slow recovery of the economy, jobs leaving the country, perceived danger to the 2nd amendment, and a host of other concerns. I have no qualms with these concerns. They are legitimate. However, the strong sense of fear in these discussions often robs them of their potential to be useful and positive conversations. I want to repeat that concerns are not the problem, fear is.
I do not consider myself a pro, but I play a lot of chess. One good rule of thumb in that game is to make moves that force the other player react. If the other player is busy moving pieces in reaction to you, then they will be less likely to achieve their own goals. Basically, this keeps the other player "off balance". A player who is "off balance" must assess the threat the other player poses but also think of a plan that goes beyond the current danger or they will very likely lose the game. While life is not just like chess, it does share a similarity in this respect: In life, we also cannot simply be reactionary. We must assess threats carefully but then move on to form a plan that reaches beyond those threats to complete our goals.
Unfortunately, the conservative voice in this nation (and indeed in the world) is far too reactionary at the moment. An example of this in Europe is the Brexit vote in England. Conservative voices continually echoed fears around the country, including fears about immigrants and the economy. The result was a strong movement to split from the EU. Unfortunately, there was little planning done beyond that point! When the prime minister stepped down, there was not a conservative politician standing ready with a plan. In fact, I would wager that most politicians - conservative and liberal alike - were not expecting the bill to pass. To many conservative politicians, Brexit was likely no more than a vehicle to mobilize voters for their own personal agendas. The end result was not the end of England but it was a very embarrassing moment and has been bad for their economy thus far by most metrics.
But England is not alone. In America, the same conservative voices have been at work. They spread fear in hope that they can capitalize on it, and this tactic largely works because of human nature. The voters hear about the immigrants that are going to destroy all that we hold dear and then vote out of fear to keep them out. They fear that they will lose their rights and vote for the candidate who will protect them. The irony this is that voters lose more than they may realize by acting in this reactionary fashion.
Fear creates a vacuum for power. That is why politicians often attempt to inspire fear in their constituents. The politician uses fear to create the vacuum and then conveniently steps into it. They effectively say, "You have problems that are big and scary but trust me and I will take care of them." If you take a look at most speeches by Donald Trump, that is almost literally what he says!
So what is wrong with a politician using fear to get votes? Nothing in particular. JFK was elected in a campaign based largely on fear of nuclear attacks. But more fear creates a larger vacuum, and that is when things get sad and ironic. Many conservative voters are so "off balance" due to the many frightening reports they are exposed to that they have lost sight of some goals completely. Conservatives believe in a government with limited power that can be held in check by it's citizens. Correct? They desire a president who is not overwhelmingly powerful, who can also be held in check by other branches of government. Correct? But many of these core values of conservatives are ignored in the search for a figure able to protect them from all of the perceived threats. Such voters are bound to fail in small numbers and are fairly dangerous in large numbers.
Consider the statement made by Donald Trump in a televised debate. "If I am elected president, I will instruct my attorney general to look into [Clinton's email] situation because there have never been so many lies, so much deception." Trump is filling a vacuum left by the many stories circulating about Clinton and the many fears people have of their unknown contents. That is a reasonable thing for a candidate to do. But the picture painted by this statement is not a great one. Imagine how powerful a president would be if they could instruct the attorney general to open up investigations on anyone they suspected! That is far too much power for a president to have. What bothers me is that such power would go against everything a typical conservative claims to believe.
A similar consolidation of power occurred under Bush with the patriot act. I have never known conservatives to feel they need to be monitored more by the government. Yet they seemed happy to submit to this when they were frightened of more terrorist attacks after 9/11. Many of the powers that Obama used, to the disapproval of conservatives, as president were granted during the the Bush administration with full support of the same conservatives. Why? Because fear created a vacuum for power and the role of president extended to fill that void.
Consider the following statement made by Trump, "One of the things I am going to do [if I win]. I'm going to open up our libel laws so that when they purposely write negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when the New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected." I would like to point out that nasty articles written by papers have been a tradition since this country was founded. There is also a tradition of the government not interfering in such things. That is the first amendment! What conservative would not protect that fundamental right! Yet conservatives are filled with fear that the "liberal media" drowns them out with its opinions and that fear creates a vacuum which is filled by Trump. Now he is cheered as he openly discusses ideas that are antithetical to core conservative beliefs!
I implore conservatives to cool down and look beyond your fears. Think about what your core beliefs are with reference to government. The country needs a conservative voice but that voice is not present. It is currently "off balance" as can be seen in the outlandish statements of its leaders. There are only two options if this trend continues: The conservative republican party will either die, losing the political game of chess. Or the conservative republican party will organize to elect more and more autocratic rulers, giving away the very rights that it once valued. I hope that conservatives wake up before either of these things happen.
We live in a very polarized time politically. I do not think it is a particularly unique moment with reference to polarization as it is human to be polarized, just as it is human to err. But the discourse has been filled with fear, in the Republican camp particularly. I hear from conservative friends fears about the affect of Muslim immigrants on American society, the slow recovery of the economy, jobs leaving the country, perceived danger to the 2nd amendment, and a host of other concerns. I have no qualms with these concerns. They are legitimate. However, the strong sense of fear in these discussions often robs them of their potential to be useful and positive conversations. I want to repeat that concerns are not the problem, fear is.
I do not consider myself a pro, but I play a lot of chess. One good rule of thumb in that game is to make moves that force the other player react. If the other player is busy moving pieces in reaction to you, then they will be less likely to achieve their own goals. Basically, this keeps the other player "off balance". A player who is "off balance" must assess the threat the other player poses but also think of a plan that goes beyond the current danger or they will very likely lose the game. While life is not just like chess, it does share a similarity in this respect: In life, we also cannot simply be reactionary. We must assess threats carefully but then move on to form a plan that reaches beyond those threats to complete our goals.
Unfortunately, the conservative voice in this nation (and indeed in the world) is far too reactionary at the moment. An example of this in Europe is the Brexit vote in England. Conservative voices continually echoed fears around the country, including fears about immigrants and the economy. The result was a strong movement to split from the EU. Unfortunately, there was little planning done beyond that point! When the prime minister stepped down, there was not a conservative politician standing ready with a plan. In fact, I would wager that most politicians - conservative and liberal alike - were not expecting the bill to pass. To many conservative politicians, Brexit was likely no more than a vehicle to mobilize voters for their own personal agendas. The end result was not the end of England but it was a very embarrassing moment and has been bad for their economy thus far by most metrics.
But England is not alone. In America, the same conservative voices have been at work. They spread fear in hope that they can capitalize on it, and this tactic largely works because of human nature. The voters hear about the immigrants that are going to destroy all that we hold dear and then vote out of fear to keep them out. They fear that they will lose their rights and vote for the candidate who will protect them. The irony this is that voters lose more than they may realize by acting in this reactionary fashion.
Fear creates a vacuum for power. That is why politicians often attempt to inspire fear in their constituents. The politician uses fear to create the vacuum and then conveniently steps into it. They effectively say, "You have problems that are big and scary but trust me and I will take care of them." If you take a look at most speeches by Donald Trump, that is almost literally what he says!
So what is wrong with a politician using fear to get votes? Nothing in particular. JFK was elected in a campaign based largely on fear of nuclear attacks. But more fear creates a larger vacuum, and that is when things get sad and ironic. Many conservative voters are so "off balance" due to the many frightening reports they are exposed to that they have lost sight of some goals completely. Conservatives believe in a government with limited power that can be held in check by it's citizens. Correct? They desire a president who is not overwhelmingly powerful, who can also be held in check by other branches of government. Correct? But many of these core values of conservatives are ignored in the search for a figure able to protect them from all of the perceived threats. Such voters are bound to fail in small numbers and are fairly dangerous in large numbers.
Consider the statement made by Donald Trump in a televised debate. "If I am elected president, I will instruct my attorney general to look into [Clinton's email] situation because there have never been so many lies, so much deception." Trump is filling a vacuum left by the many stories circulating about Clinton and the many fears people have of their unknown contents. That is a reasonable thing for a candidate to do. But the picture painted by this statement is not a great one. Imagine how powerful a president would be if they could instruct the attorney general to open up investigations on anyone they suspected! That is far too much power for a president to have. What bothers me is that such power would go against everything a typical conservative claims to believe.
A similar consolidation of power occurred under Bush with the patriot act. I have never known conservatives to feel they need to be monitored more by the government. Yet they seemed happy to submit to this when they were frightened of more terrorist attacks after 9/11. Many of the powers that Obama used, to the disapproval of conservatives, as president were granted during the the Bush administration with full support of the same conservatives. Why? Because fear created a vacuum for power and the role of president extended to fill that void.
Consider the following statement made by Trump, "One of the things I am going to do [if I win]. I'm going to open up our libel laws so that when they purposely write negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when the New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected." I would like to point out that nasty articles written by papers have been a tradition since this country was founded. There is also a tradition of the government not interfering in such things. That is the first amendment! What conservative would not protect that fundamental right! Yet conservatives are filled with fear that the "liberal media" drowns them out with its opinions and that fear creates a vacuum which is filled by Trump. Now he is cheered as he openly discusses ideas that are antithetical to core conservative beliefs!
I implore conservatives to cool down and look beyond your fears. Think about what your core beliefs are with reference to government. The country needs a conservative voice but that voice is not present. It is currently "off balance" as can be seen in the outlandish statements of its leaders. There are only two options if this trend continues: The conservative republican party will either die, losing the political game of chess. Or the conservative republican party will organize to elect more and more autocratic rulers, giving away the very rights that it once valued. I hope that conservatives wake up before either of these things happen.
Friday, October 28, 2016
Thoughts on Emerson
“A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which
flashes across his mind from within, more than the lustre of the
firmament of bards and sages. Yet he dismisses without notice his
thought, because it is his. In every work of genius we recognize our own
rejected thoughts: they come back to us with a certain alienated
majesty.”
― Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance
― Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance
I remember the first time I read Emerson's essay on self-reliance. I was moved, as many are, by his strong convictions. Certain passages seemed to leap from the page and dare me to speak with the same self-assured authority. This was writing that called to the impetuous youth in me. I found myself thinking, "I am a brilliant mind with great truths and beautiful ideas to share with the world!"
I think that everyone goes through a time when they feel as I have in such moments. There is a sense of discovery, of importance and possibility. The world feels small compared with the big thoughts that float through your consciousness just waiting to spoken into being! I certainly hope that everyone has felt something akin to that sense of enlightenment.
That said, life has a multitude of perspectives to show each of us, just as we have many different sides to ourselves that we only become aware of as we grow. I learned, for instance, the childish weakness of a voice like Emerson. I imagined what a fragmented mess a society of such self-reliant people would be. The process was a frustrating one for me. I hate the sense of disillusionment that descends when one sees the cracks in the foundation of a beautiful world-view hat smacks of truth. It is hard to let go of the wonderful ideal held in the past. It was difficult to figure out what part of Emerson's beautiful perspective to try to hold onto as the cracks widened and large picture fell to pieces.
I feel that this process happens to many in life. We "dream dreams" in our young days but as our world grows, those dreams shatter or become untenable. We are eventually left with a strong sense of disillusionment that mostly manifests itself in witty sarcasm. The well-educated learn to doubt statements that are "manifestly true", looking for the flaws in ideas and qualifying any strong statement with many caveats that would likely have driven Emerson to avoid their society.
And yet, that voice still rings true. I still dream of that perfect truth that needs no qualifying statements, no disclaimers. I still overflow with ideas that I am loathe to speak lest they prove false or too small for the world of tomorrow. And sometimes, I hear those ideas in the voices of others and feel a coward who must accept my own ideas from another.
In this blog, I hope to write my own big Emersonian ideas. Some will be good, others bad. I will do my best to consider all things but it is human to err. Rather than be overly careful, I will speak my thoughts without apology or regret. In this way, I hope to satiate the young Emerson living inside me. I may even have a few things to say that are new and make a difference in the world. Even if that never happens, I will continue for my own sake. In many ways, it is a dark world we live in. I want to hold tight to any "gleam of light" that passes through my mind, inspect it, record it, and continue optimistically my quest for the deeper truths of life.
Join me or don't. Agree or disagree. Post your own thoughts and I will try to reply. Or just read along and follow my journey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)