Today is Rosa Park's 101st birthday. As we all know, it was her refusal to give up her seat on a bus back in 1955 that sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Something I didn't realize until today is that the boycott went on for 381 days. Wow. The boycott also was the countries first introduction to a 26-year-old preacher named Martin Luther King, Jr. So, I suppose today is as good a day as any to think a bit about how we treat people. (Really, every day is a good day to think on this.)
It is obvious how we ought to treat others. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. We call it the Golden Rule, and it included in just about every religious or moral ethics system that I'm aware of.
Lately, I've been wondering why so many people seem to struggle with it. Last I read it (which was about 10 seconds ago) - "whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to the" (Matthew 7:12) there, you've read it too, now - Christ's directive didn't make any exceptions for, well, anything. If it is obvious to us that we should not treat people differently because of their skin color, nationality or gender . . . wait, let's stop and discuss.
Skin color, nationality and gender: We're all on board here, right? I'm going to say that you, the reader are with me so far. My question for you is: why? Would you recoil if I said something like, "Some new people moved in next door, and I'm not sure if I should go introduce myself, because, you know, they're black."? You're eyes would get all weird and you'd look at me like I'm crazy, right? How about, "My cousin invited me to a party, but I'm not going to go because her husband is Italian, and they probably invited all their Italian relatives." I'm a pig if I say something like that. Why? I think you should have your own answer in mind before I tell you mine. And just so you know, I'm perfectly ok if your answer is different than mine. Take a minute and think through your answer before continuing on to the next paragraph.
Ok, here's my answer: I don't say things like that (or act like that) because the noun is what's important, not the adjective. Those people, be they black or Italian, are defined by the noun - people - not the adjective. And as long as they fall in the 'people' category, I consider them a child of God, and thereby a heavenly sibling. If you're not religious, the child of God aspect of my reasoning probably doesn't do much for you, but I have plenty of faith that you're still able to be a decent human being. ;) Ok, we're ready to finish that sentence that I cut off 3 paragraphs ago.
If it is obvious to us that we should not treat people differently because of their skin color, nationality or gender, why would we think that we should treat them differently based on their sexual preferences? I'm generally not a confrontational person, but I've recently been exposed to another rash of people who seem level headed but who can't seem to get this one through their skulls. Those people out there that are homosexual, or gay, or lesbian . . . they're also still people. Humans are deeply social creatures, and they deserve to not be mistreated, ignored, shunned or avoided.
So when the two gay guys move in next door, go introduce yourself, take them cookies and let them know that you have a shovel they can borrow any time they need it. And when your lesbian cousin invites you to a party you don't avoid it because it's somehow tainted with lesbian-ness - regardless of how many lesbians she might invite. This rule holds even if - get ready, because here's where I start stepping on people's toes - even if, nay, especially if that party is a wedding. Whoever that homosexual person is that has invited you to their wedding, be it a co-worker, neighbor, friend or relative, if you value that person as a person you'd better be there, unless you have a reason that you would use if it were a heterosexual wedding.
What about not supporting their sinful lifestyle? Baloney. First off, they probably already know what you think of it. Second, your purpose in life isn't to let other people know what you think of their choices. You are not the morality police. Don't define people by the worst trait you can see in them. Define them by the best.
What about the influence that such an event will have on my kids? Rubbish. 18 years raising a kid, and 2 hours at a wedding is going to somehow be the deciding factor in how they turn out? Time spent at that wedding is fifty three thousand times as influential as the rest of their upbringing?
It pains me that I even have to write all this down, because it ought to be so obvious. I don't like interrupting people and telling them that they're ridiculous, but I've heard some of these things for just about the last time. We should be kinder to each other. We should reach out to each other. We should value every single person for their limitless potential and their many wonderful attributes. We should think of how our actions will effect others. We should love people more, and judge people less.
Ok, rant off. You can think of me what you will, but just know that whatever you do think, I won't think any less of you.
3 comments:
AMEN!
Kate has a friend with two moms. I think Kate is the only kid in the neighborhood who plays with their daughter (she was the only one from school or the neighborhood at her birthday party). We can tell that they are very grateful that their daughter has a friend, and I'm sure they know what our religion is. It's sad how much this girl's life is affected because people are judging her parents.
I don't have any particular trouble with your conclusion, but I'd take more significant issue with your more general claim on the way to getting there.
Formally you've made the claim that there does not exist a value of X such that X makes it okay to treat people differently. But I'm willing to bet that I can posit lots of values of X that you wouldn't accept that for. For example, you surely don't argue that we should treat all people equally regardless of whether they choose to poison random strangers.
Having hopefully conceded that the original formulation is invalid you can proceed to try and save it rationally.
The point here I think is not to never distinguish on any axis but instead to choose the axises that we judge on meaningfully. There are in fact times when one should treat people differently based on their skin color if one happens to be a doctor.
I don't mean to merely make a pedantic point, but rather I mean to suggest that in that difference you could drive a truck through the whole created by putting gender next to nationality in that list. I can imagine that if you have two co-workers one of who is a young single beautiful woman and the other of whom is a widowed elderly gentleman, and they both invite you to come to their house late at night after work to engage in a mutual interest on a night when your wife and children are otherwise occupied that Shannon expects you to treat them differently. Not because you don't see both as people but because their different situations make different choices wise and appropriate.
(Backing off the way I do and think you must, does suggest perfectly reasonable ways that one could argue against your conclusion, also,but I have no interest in doing so.)
Yes Ben, you're right. I didn't take the time to fully tack on the needed caveats. No one should be naive about renting out a room to a mass murderer. Certain races have genetic pre-dispositions toward certain diseases. Et cetera, et cetera.
I think it's also clear that my point is that all human beings deserve to be treated with as much respect and love as we can possibly give them.
Post a Comment