I am going to give you an analogy and a case study that will help you to understand "how" God "thinks" (by that I mean his perspective on human actions). My purpose is not to help you to try to understand what cannot actually be understood by humans (or even by angels, who while they share God's vision they cannot comprehend how its perfection originates in God, which is why they constantly praise God in heaven). Rather, I am going to help you to look at a sad and unpleasant earthly issue and be better able to make just, righteous and virtuous choices and thus form your own opinions accordingly. I've thought of a few analogy and case studies so here is the first one.
As you know, many people who oppose abortion understand that even certain forms of birth control have shades of abortion, since they destroy the created embryo by not allowing it to implant, etc. While the Catholic Church and others of their belief oppose all forms of terminating preborn life, they recognize that there is a difference between contraception (preventing the embryo from even forming in the first place) and abortion (destroying or hindering the growth of an actual embryo). Thus the Catholic Church opposes both but for different reasons, though both rest on the reverence and valuing of all human life. Contraception is opposed because there is a Biblical prohibition of "spilling one's seed on the ground," which means that all sex acts should occur in a marital situation that is open to the possibility of a pregnancy occurring. So contraception is opposed because it appears that God has instructed that the raw material of pregnancy should not be discarded, wasted or hindered from combining into a pregnancy. Abortion is opposed because it is viewed as not only being devaluing of life and irreverential toward God's commission to be fruitful and multiple, but because it also violates the Commandment against killing. So that is the medical and spiritual background against which this case study takes place.
One way people promote both birth control and abortion is to accuse those who oppose either or both of those practices of being "insensitive" and "cruel" in certain situations. The usual situation is whereby a victim of rape seeks an abortion. Now, the specific case study I want to give to you is the situation regarding why some people oppose giving "morning after" so called "emergency contraception" pills to a rape victim. In other words, working in slightly different ways, these pills create an environment hostile toward a pregnancy either occurring (if it has not yet happened) or the embryo if it is in place being able to attach and grow. Many people, including those of good will and emotional thoughtfulness, wonder how people can be mean as to "condemn" a rape victim to a possible pregnancy.
Before I move to the analogy, where I explain God's way of thinking in the matter, let me remind you that I am not an absolutist, as I have blogged before. I believe that a small child who is raped and pregnant and who is seeking an abortion for the good reasons of her extreme youth and her fragile health, should receive one, and the sin of abortion thus rests upon whoever allowed the rape to occur. I remind you that I blogged about the most recent case of this happening so that you are not distracted in reading my analogy by the thought that I am insensitive and inflexible, for I am not, obviously.
So let's go back to the case study, which is a teenage or adult woman (in other words, not a child as I outlined above) is raped and seeks immediate "after the rape" "emergency contraception," which is medicine that either aborts the newly formed embryo or prevents the sperm and egg from fertilizing, if they had not yet. So I am speaking of someone who could bear a child with the normal risks of pregnancy, but not the additional risk and trauma of a little child being raped.
Here is the analogy that helps shed some light on how God views this dilemma. Imagine there is a poor and primitive village of indigenous people in a remote area, where they barely eke out a living to support themselves, but are otherwise content. One day a man goes insane and kills a married couple, leaving their small child alive, but now with no one to provide for her. How would you feel if the village decided to kill the small child, because they could not support her in the place of her parents and, and this is the important point, the fact that she is now unsupported is the result of a crime.
So think this through. These well meaning villagers have now lost two pairs of hands and legs that used to raise food, build dwellings, haul water, etc due to the crime of murder, and now with that loss of sustenance providing married couple, the village is stuck with a burden, the little girl, that did not exist before, and all because of a crime.
I'll bet many of you have to haul yourself back from the slippery slope of "understanding" that the "poor indigenous" people just "might have to" make a "tough decision" and being "unable to support the little girl" "through no fault of their own" and "because of someone else's crime," they just "can't support the little girl due to this crime" and thus (how long can we delay saying it?)... they kill her, either outright or by allowing her to starve or perish due to wild beasts in the forest, or from exposure to the cold.
No, God would not "understand" that. God would think that the people who do have enough to eat and shelter don't deserve to have even the little they do have if they cannot raise, support and comfort the little girl whose parents, those two able bodied workers, were murdered. Odds are that God would hardly bless the future of the village who killed the child because "they could not support her." Indeed, these villagers would all have to answer to him when they receive on their inevitable death personal judgment.
Now that you understand "how God thinks" in the analogy, now look back to the case study. In both situations you have a helpless child due to a crime (in the case study, due to rape, in the analogy, due to the murder of the parents). God does not want to hear lame, selfish and craven excuses from a poor village who murders due to poverty, so how much less does God want to hear such excuses from a society that has health care, hospitals, welfare, parents and grandparents with salaries, and the potential for adoption?
It is a hard message to understand how God thinks because his thought is entirely based on love and justice. No human can ever live up to that, but they sure should not provoke the obvious because of greed and selfishness, or, and this is understandable, where shattered emotions and self pity due to the rape can lead, due to the weakness of human nature, of blaming the child for "ruining" their "plans." "My life has been ruined, I've been raped and if I have this child I have to pay money and lose a year of college before getting my high paid job and giving the baby away in adoption." Put in God's point of view, while he understands the broken, selfish weakness of humanity (after all, Eve had everything and she still wanted more in the Garden of Eden), it is hardly as noble and kind hearted as humans think they are being when they urge a rape victim to consider "emergency contraception" and/or abortion.
Back to the analogy. Maybe those lazy ass villagers ought to work a little harder to grow a few more crops, rather than just the bit they have, in order to not murder the child. Maybe their doing so would result in them discovering a vein of gold in a stream that they had not noticed before. Sometimes even those in extreme economic situations through genuine kindness can exert themselves even more to support a child, rather than say "We'd like to but we can't."
God is the ultimate democrat, because every life is equally precious in its creation and its potential in his eyes. Many people alive today exist because somewhere in their family tree someone did not abort a child due to rape in warfare or other circumstances.
I hope that this case study and the accompanying analogy has helped you understand one aspect-a very important one-of God's "thoughts." More so I hope this helps you to not have knee jerk reaction to even painful events when developing your own stance, attitudes, thoughts, feelings and ultimately policies and decisions, where you react to the obvious sympathy and empathy without considering all the routes that genuine mercy, virtue and righteous do take place.
Showing posts with label virtues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label virtues. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
First of a few end of calendar year thoughts
Hi everyone. Rather than long postings I'm just going to type in a few musings, keeping them to a few moments of reflection. I hope these help to ease some of the angst and regrets that many have about the sadness of the 2000-2009 years.
Many have written really good columns reflecting on this somewhat nameless decade, mentioning how instead of having names like the "80's" or the "90's," the "00's" really have no verbiage except the old expression, the "aughts." Aught is an old fashioned expression that indicates when the digit 0 is used as a place holder in a number. Old school marms would tell their students to write on the chalk board, in the year 1800 for example, "one, eight, aught, aught" instead of saying to write "one, eight, zero, zero." So the best anyone could come up with is calling this nearly past decade "the aughts."
I know that many are thinking that "the aughts" is certainly a correct name as a pun, regarding the regrets and totally missed opportunities for any sort of improvement or enlightenment, peace, love and reconciliation, as those are the "ought" to haves, or the "oughts." Hardly anyone has wrapped themselves in glory the past decade and they have, instead, missed nearly every opportunity to make a wise and/or generous choice in most matters. Even what seemed like great advances or victories, or progress, nearly all ring hollow now, often surprisingly soon after these victories were achieved. I'm not being critical about specifics right now, simply summing up the zeit geist (the spirit of the times, where spirit means the mood of the times) of the past decade.
Regular readers know that one reason the aughts were the oughts was that many beliefs and goals have slowly been revealed as being imaginary, false, unjust or simply plain wrong headed. The truth is never slow to be revealed, for lies are revealed in a flash, the moment the truth is spoken in anyone's hearing. No, it is the acceptance that one has been deceived, taught wrongly, or self deluding that is slower than a snail's pace in dawning.
The aughts aka the oughts are the culmination of previous (snappily named) decades of delusion and misguided focus (on all fronts in all areas of secular life and of course tremendous amounts of false prophecy in the spiritual life). It is like vats of sad gooey slowly burning tar has fallen onto many people's heads, but that tar has been collected and cooking for several decades now.
Here is the second problem with the aughts aka the oughts. Not only do you have the first problem whereby this soon past decade is the culmination (unpleasant consequences) of lack of truth and very bad goals, but the second problem is that even when the truth dawned of bad choices, many continued to try to use the false tools to "fix" things, the tools that were fashioned based on error and delusion in the first place. Often people who claimed to "think outside the box" were those most guilty of being stuck in tar, gum and chains inside a false box to begin with.
The only way to make the next decade bearable is to return to genuine faith and reasoning, with authentic search and emphasis for truth and justice, and not the "identity theft" that faith, reasoning, truth and justice have been subjected to. If I had to give a sound byte or a slogan to help focus good intentions for the next decade it would be to regain authentic understanding of righteousness.
The righteous man or woman, boy or girl not only are the ones who will gain heaven, but they are the ones who have the correct leavening of faith and reasoning to live life honorably and to pursue genuinely virtuous goals. Without faith based righteousness (as opposed to the undesirable self righteousness) each person and their communities are like compasses that not only lack the needle, the markings of the cardinal directions, but also lack the proper container, and one is only grasping at agenda and illusion rather than the truth.
Many have written really good columns reflecting on this somewhat nameless decade, mentioning how instead of having names like the "80's" or the "90's," the "00's" really have no verbiage except the old expression, the "aughts." Aught is an old fashioned expression that indicates when the digit 0 is used as a place holder in a number. Old school marms would tell their students to write on the chalk board, in the year 1800 for example, "one, eight, aught, aught" instead of saying to write "one, eight, zero, zero." So the best anyone could come up with is calling this nearly past decade "the aughts."
I know that many are thinking that "the aughts" is certainly a correct name as a pun, regarding the regrets and totally missed opportunities for any sort of improvement or enlightenment, peace, love and reconciliation, as those are the "ought" to haves, or the "oughts." Hardly anyone has wrapped themselves in glory the past decade and they have, instead, missed nearly every opportunity to make a wise and/or generous choice in most matters. Even what seemed like great advances or victories, or progress, nearly all ring hollow now, often surprisingly soon after these victories were achieved. I'm not being critical about specifics right now, simply summing up the zeit geist (the spirit of the times, where spirit means the mood of the times) of the past decade.
Regular readers know that one reason the aughts were the oughts was that many beliefs and goals have slowly been revealed as being imaginary, false, unjust or simply plain wrong headed. The truth is never slow to be revealed, for lies are revealed in a flash, the moment the truth is spoken in anyone's hearing. No, it is the acceptance that one has been deceived, taught wrongly, or self deluding that is slower than a snail's pace in dawning.
The aughts aka the oughts are the culmination of previous (snappily named) decades of delusion and misguided focus (on all fronts in all areas of secular life and of course tremendous amounts of false prophecy in the spiritual life). It is like vats of sad gooey slowly burning tar has fallen onto many people's heads, but that tar has been collected and cooking for several decades now.
Here is the second problem with the aughts aka the oughts. Not only do you have the first problem whereby this soon past decade is the culmination (unpleasant consequences) of lack of truth and very bad goals, but the second problem is that even when the truth dawned of bad choices, many continued to try to use the false tools to "fix" things, the tools that were fashioned based on error and delusion in the first place. Often people who claimed to "think outside the box" were those most guilty of being stuck in tar, gum and chains inside a false box to begin with.
The only way to make the next decade bearable is to return to genuine faith and reasoning, with authentic search and emphasis for truth and justice, and not the "identity theft" that faith, reasoning, truth and justice have been subjected to. If I had to give a sound byte or a slogan to help focus good intentions for the next decade it would be to regain authentic understanding of righteousness.
The righteous man or woman, boy or girl not only are the ones who will gain heaven, but they are the ones who have the correct leavening of faith and reasoning to live life honorably and to pursue genuinely virtuous goals. Without faith based righteousness (as opposed to the undesirable self righteousness) each person and their communities are like compasses that not only lack the needle, the markings of the cardinal directions, but also lack the proper container, and one is only grasping at agenda and illusion rather than the truth.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Cultural diplomacy tutorial case study Part 1
I was listening to a talk show, and there was, by one of the guests, a mention of what he thought was an ironic contrast. The commentator was annoyed that some people make "value judgments" regarding "gay marriage" while the "same people" are "silent" about issues such as "female genital mutilation." Whoa, that really got my attention, since he did a bit of a rant about female genital mutilation (also incorrectly called female circumcision), accusing liberals of being soft on horrors such as this that he says they rationalize by calling it a "cultural" context. So I realized here is a great case study about cultural diplomacy.
Let me start by saying that female genital mutilation is never right, it is an abomination, it is not rationalized at all in the Qur'an, and it sprang up as a local cult belief among some tribal regions in Africa. I do not agree that either side, liberals or conservatives, are ignoring this issue or giving it a cultural "free pass." I do not agree AT ALL. I've seen great work and education by both "sides" of the western political persuasions. But here is what is missing. Both sides lack tools, understanding and adeptness at how to conduct cultural diplomacy.
Once a practice has taken root over hundreds of years, one cannot go in and argue that it had no legitimate foundation since unfortunately, there it is, and often large parts of the ethnic society are now structured around this belief. So even if you bring in Muslim scholars and elders to dispute the practice, that often is not a help except to guide when a decision has been made to actually stop the practice. In other words, religious leaders and elders from other villages or tribes can help facilitate the change and problem solve the process once agreement is made to abandon the practice. So how does one get a village, just to use an example, to abandon the practice?
The most common error by Westerners is to not 1) identify what cultural value the village is attempting to protect through the practice and then 2) propose an alternative activity or solution that protects the value without continuing the practice. Westerners often let themselves be blinded by the horror of what is being done, without considering what "horror" the traditionalists are seeking to avoid. Here is what I would do.
First of all, I would identify what cultural value they believe female circumcision is promoting or protecting. It is obvious that dialogue would reveal that the value they are attempting to protect is a girl or young woman's virtue. Many of these customs developed because they believe that 1) if sexual delight is destroyed in a girl that she will not have extra-marital sex and thus 2) in the marriage contract men can be assured she is a virgin and that she will not stray in marriage. As a result they do draconian things such as not only removing the clitoris, but they also actually sew up the vaginal openings of girls, barely allowing urine or menstrual blood to pass through. Needless to say childbirth and all natural functions become painful, infected and life endangering.
Arguing that this is unhealthy, painful, cruel and not a guarantee of virtue is mostly futile, since all the elders have to reply is "Well, we are still here, are we not?" So long as the population thrive, they will be fearful to remove even the most draconian practice. Westerners have no valid answer to the argument that their population is thriving (even with misery). Thus, what I would recommend is to agree that virtue is a valued and prized objective, and propose alternative ways to achieve it than female circumcision. Rarely do you get anywhere by jerking the rug out from under them, convincing them that it is "wrong," but then not replacing it with a new and powerful cultural practice that is consistent with their beliefs.
An example of an alternative is to propose that they create a system of "virtue chaperons" that girls can join at the age when circumcision would have been performed. Women, such as teachers or elders, could have a responsibility for monitoring the virtue of young girls who are joined with them in such a relationship. For example, a girl could be offered the alternative, circumcision or joining this kind of virtue guardianship. So while a girl might give up some privacy (perhaps agreeing to forgo some activities that circumcised girls could attend), she can avoid being circumcised. When the village has had a chance to see side by side girls who opt traditional and those who opt for the new virtue guardianship, and see that it works, they will not fear putting circumcision aside. Remember, those cultures have different views of privacy than westerners. Young girls would not mind an "auntie" kind of "virtue guardianship," even after they are married. Good health practices can also be taught, but be careful not to dive into western birth control and other ideas if they are not welcomed yet at that time. But what I am saying is that the virtue guardians can have a warm role, such as helping with a young girl's health questions, helping with babies when she is first married, that is more than a compensation for the "lack" of privacy, that is questionable in its cultural context anyway.
Young men, potential suitors, would be more likely to value a young girl with a certification of virtue guardianship than one that is suffering and mutilated. Once trust is established that virtue is being monitored (and the virtue guardians provide genuine helping hands to the young couple and family), it becomes win-win for all, while still preserving the cultural imperative to protect virtue.
I hope that you have found this case study of cultural diplomacy to be useful.
Let me start by saying that female genital mutilation is never right, it is an abomination, it is not rationalized at all in the Qur'an, and it sprang up as a local cult belief among some tribal regions in Africa. I do not agree that either side, liberals or conservatives, are ignoring this issue or giving it a cultural "free pass." I do not agree AT ALL. I've seen great work and education by both "sides" of the western political persuasions. But here is what is missing. Both sides lack tools, understanding and adeptness at how to conduct cultural diplomacy.
Once a practice has taken root over hundreds of years, one cannot go in and argue that it had no legitimate foundation since unfortunately, there it is, and often large parts of the ethnic society are now structured around this belief. So even if you bring in Muslim scholars and elders to dispute the practice, that often is not a help except to guide when a decision has been made to actually stop the practice. In other words, religious leaders and elders from other villages or tribes can help facilitate the change and problem solve the process once agreement is made to abandon the practice. So how does one get a village, just to use an example, to abandon the practice?
The most common error by Westerners is to not 1) identify what cultural value the village is attempting to protect through the practice and then 2) propose an alternative activity or solution that protects the value without continuing the practice. Westerners often let themselves be blinded by the horror of what is being done, without considering what "horror" the traditionalists are seeking to avoid. Here is what I would do.
First of all, I would identify what cultural value they believe female circumcision is promoting or protecting. It is obvious that dialogue would reveal that the value they are attempting to protect is a girl or young woman's virtue. Many of these customs developed because they believe that 1) if sexual delight is destroyed in a girl that she will not have extra-marital sex and thus 2) in the marriage contract men can be assured she is a virgin and that she will not stray in marriage. As a result they do draconian things such as not only removing the clitoris, but they also actually sew up the vaginal openings of girls, barely allowing urine or menstrual blood to pass through. Needless to say childbirth and all natural functions become painful, infected and life endangering.
Arguing that this is unhealthy, painful, cruel and not a guarantee of virtue is mostly futile, since all the elders have to reply is "Well, we are still here, are we not?" So long as the population thrive, they will be fearful to remove even the most draconian practice. Westerners have no valid answer to the argument that their population is thriving (even with misery). Thus, what I would recommend is to agree that virtue is a valued and prized objective, and propose alternative ways to achieve it than female circumcision. Rarely do you get anywhere by jerking the rug out from under them, convincing them that it is "wrong," but then not replacing it with a new and powerful cultural practice that is consistent with their beliefs.
An example of an alternative is to propose that they create a system of "virtue chaperons" that girls can join at the age when circumcision would have been performed. Women, such as teachers or elders, could have a responsibility for monitoring the virtue of young girls who are joined with them in such a relationship. For example, a girl could be offered the alternative, circumcision or joining this kind of virtue guardianship. So while a girl might give up some privacy (perhaps agreeing to forgo some activities that circumcised girls could attend), she can avoid being circumcised. When the village has had a chance to see side by side girls who opt traditional and those who opt for the new virtue guardianship, and see that it works, they will not fear putting circumcision aside. Remember, those cultures have different views of privacy than westerners. Young girls would not mind an "auntie" kind of "virtue guardianship," even after they are married. Good health practices can also be taught, but be careful not to dive into western birth control and other ideas if they are not welcomed yet at that time. But what I am saying is that the virtue guardians can have a warm role, such as helping with a young girl's health questions, helping with babies when she is first married, that is more than a compensation for the "lack" of privacy, that is questionable in its cultural context anyway.
Young men, potential suitors, would be more likely to value a young girl with a certification of virtue guardianship than one that is suffering and mutilated. Once trust is established that virtue is being monitored (and the virtue guardians provide genuine helping hands to the young couple and family), it becomes win-win for all, while still preserving the cultural imperative to protect virtue.
I hope that you have found this case study of cultural diplomacy to be useful.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Self restraint: song and movie references
For further thought, I offer the lyrics of what was one of my favorite songs decades ago, "Restrain Yourself" by Poco.
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/RESTRAIN-lyrics-Poco/26690C889BC504964825699E0022128A
If you read the song you'll see exactly what I mean. When this song was written, restraint was still considered a virtue. The singer is telling the listen to restrain his or her self until they can't restrain no more. This song literally demarks, without intending to, the crucial shift in thinking about "self restraint" that I just have blogged about. I love this song because it is about the virtue of restraining until one really must act on one's convictions. The singer is by no means being critical of the listener for "restraining." It is right on the edge of the time when people who DO restraint themselves in any way shape or form have become quickly criticized as being "repressed" and "inauthentic." The beat to this song is awesome too, by the way!
The second example is the classic movie "Shane," starring Alan Ladd. It is about a retired gunslinger who takes a lot of crap yet refuses to solve his problems again with a gun. It is the ultimate movie about virtuous restraint. He restrains not only himself from gun slinging, but also from falling in love with the wife of his employer, until it becomes a matter of protecting the family he has come to love. Then the guns are strapped back on. This movie is an icon about virtuous "self restraint" and when it is time to stop restraining when there is dire virtuous need.
You can see how the "hippie" generation destroyed the whole idea of virtuous restraint, something that ALL of humanity valued until the last forty years. It is mind boggling, truly.
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/RESTRAIN-lyrics-Poco/26690C889BC504964825699E0022128A
If you read the song you'll see exactly what I mean. When this song was written, restraint was still considered a virtue. The singer is telling the listen to restrain his or her self until they can't restrain no more. This song literally demarks, without intending to, the crucial shift in thinking about "self restraint" that I just have blogged about. I love this song because it is about the virtue of restraining until one really must act on one's convictions. The singer is by no means being critical of the listener for "restraining." It is right on the edge of the time when people who DO restraint themselves in any way shape or form have become quickly criticized as being "repressed" and "inauthentic." The beat to this song is awesome too, by the way!
The second example is the classic movie "Shane," starring Alan Ladd. It is about a retired gunslinger who takes a lot of crap yet refuses to solve his problems again with a gun. It is the ultimate movie about virtuous restraint. He restrains not only himself from gun slinging, but also from falling in love with the wife of his employer, until it becomes a matter of protecting the family he has come to love. Then the guns are strapped back on. This movie is an icon about virtuous "self restraint" and when it is time to stop restraining when there is dire virtuous need.
You can see how the "hippie" generation destroyed the whole idea of virtuous restraint, something that ALL of humanity valued until the last forty years. It is mind boggling, truly.
Self restraint: from virtue to vice
I made this observation in a comment on another blog just now (Ignatius Press) and feel I should repeat alerting all to this important and destructive societal shift that occurred in the 1960's. I might write more on it, but I just want to spend a few sentences on the point at this time so you can consider it in your own research and contemplation.
Prior to the societal "revolution" in the 1960's "self restraint" was considered a virtue. This was true in all classes of society, all ages and both genders. It was considered a virtue that was taught to children and exercised by adults.
In the 1960's an amazing flip occurred that very few people noticed (I did) and I've not seen much written about it, precisely because what was once a virtue has been demonized as a vice. So why would any sociologists etc write about something they think was a "good" change instead of the incredibly destructive one that it has proven to be?
In the 1960's, almost in the blink of an eye, "self restraint" went from being a universally applauded virtue to a nearly instantly globally mocked sign of being "inauthentic." "Doing your own thing" and being "authentic" joined the other concept "relevance" to throw the concept of "self restraint" totally out of societal approval and instead, consider it to be the sign of a repressed and "inauthentic" person.
Thus practices such as natural rhythm method birth control, approved by the Catholic Church, were tossed out and mocked just as the scientific technology to provide tools to measure safe times for marital relations were being developed. A man and woman who did not "do it in the road" the very minute they felt the "urge" were viewed as "repressed" and "inauthentic."
This became true of virtually every societal breakdown and genuine vice we see the effects of today. Addictions of all kinds sprung up because someone who said "no" and had "self restraint" was viewed as "repressed" and "inauthentic." The same is true with having two married parents heading a family with one reliable breadwinner: this became viewed as "repressed" and "inauthentic" rather than an exercise in the virtue of self restraint.
Similarly, reckless driving, lack of politeness and the coarsening of society were all applauded as being "authentic" and "throwing off one's oppression" and again, self restraint was viewed as a sign of "repression" and "having authenticity issues" (though the word issues came into play decades later, in the 1990's really). But I use it because young readers will know what I mean. People who still tried to exercise "self restraint" in their lives were viewed as having what we would call in the pop lingo "issues" rather than being virtuous.
I cannot overemphasize how seismic this dramatic, sudden and wrong-headed shift was for our society locally and globally, and how destructive it has been, and how is to this day, due to lack of understanding it's power, sabotages well meaning discourse on virtually ever subject.
One more comment. This is why this generation feels a hunger for the virtue of self restraint that their parents withheld and mislead them about totally, but this generation does not recognize that self restraint is what they are looking for. So they adopt practices such as painful tattoos, not for the body art aesthetic, if they really self analyzed, but because in managing the pain and making a "statement" they are providing a substitute for their own "self restraint." It is like how gangs spring up and flourish where there are no traditional families. This generation does some strange extreme things because they are "testing their limits," but what this really is in fact is a reflection of their not being taught how to have dignified limits from their very childhood, and that is what "self restraint" really is: dignified limits that are self imposed in a virtuous fashion. Into the vacuum, therefore, of no "self restraint" pours new behaviors that both seek limits while defying them, whether it is pain or extreme sports, over achieving, etc. You've been brainwashed into thinking that if you have one flicker of thought about something, and if it is "doable," then you should do it. I could list examples I see on the news everyday, but genuinely have no desire to hurt anyone. But think about it; you'll know what I mean.
This MUST be addressed.
Prior to the societal "revolution" in the 1960's "self restraint" was considered a virtue. This was true in all classes of society, all ages and both genders. It was considered a virtue that was taught to children and exercised by adults.
In the 1960's an amazing flip occurred that very few people noticed (I did) and I've not seen much written about it, precisely because what was once a virtue has been demonized as a vice. So why would any sociologists etc write about something they think was a "good" change instead of the incredibly destructive one that it has proven to be?
In the 1960's, almost in the blink of an eye, "self restraint" went from being a universally applauded virtue to a nearly instantly globally mocked sign of being "inauthentic." "Doing your own thing" and being "authentic" joined the other concept "relevance" to throw the concept of "self restraint" totally out of societal approval and instead, consider it to be the sign of a repressed and "inauthentic" person.
Thus practices such as natural rhythm method birth control, approved by the Catholic Church, were tossed out and mocked just as the scientific technology to provide tools to measure safe times for marital relations were being developed. A man and woman who did not "do it in the road" the very minute they felt the "urge" were viewed as "repressed" and "inauthentic."
This became true of virtually every societal breakdown and genuine vice we see the effects of today. Addictions of all kinds sprung up because someone who said "no" and had "self restraint" was viewed as "repressed" and "inauthentic." The same is true with having two married parents heading a family with one reliable breadwinner: this became viewed as "repressed" and "inauthentic" rather than an exercise in the virtue of self restraint.
Similarly, reckless driving, lack of politeness and the coarsening of society were all applauded as being "authentic" and "throwing off one's oppression" and again, self restraint was viewed as a sign of "repression" and "having authenticity issues" (though the word issues came into play decades later, in the 1990's really). But I use it because young readers will know what I mean. People who still tried to exercise "self restraint" in their lives were viewed as having what we would call in the pop lingo "issues" rather than being virtuous.
I cannot overemphasize how seismic this dramatic, sudden and wrong-headed shift was for our society locally and globally, and how destructive it has been, and how is to this day, due to lack of understanding it's power, sabotages well meaning discourse on virtually ever subject.
One more comment. This is why this generation feels a hunger for the virtue of self restraint that their parents withheld and mislead them about totally, but this generation does not recognize that self restraint is what they are looking for. So they adopt practices such as painful tattoos, not for the body art aesthetic, if they really self analyzed, but because in managing the pain and making a "statement" they are providing a substitute for their own "self restraint." It is like how gangs spring up and flourish where there are no traditional families. This generation does some strange extreme things because they are "testing their limits," but what this really is in fact is a reflection of their not being taught how to have dignified limits from their very childhood, and that is what "self restraint" really is: dignified limits that are self imposed in a virtuous fashion. Into the vacuum, therefore, of no "self restraint" pours new behaviors that both seek limits while defying them, whether it is pain or extreme sports, over achieving, etc. You've been brainwashed into thinking that if you have one flicker of thought about something, and if it is "doable," then you should do it. I could list examples I see on the news everyday, but genuinely have no desire to hurt anyone. But think about it; you'll know what I mean.
This MUST be addressed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
