It Is, Up for Debate
Hold onto your hat, I'm feeling rather verbose. I've mulled this concept over for quite some time. This long diatribe is not the definitive conclusion, by any stretch of the imagination, just a stop along the way in my evolution. A moment of thinking out loud. And it is, only one opinion.
Obsessive compulsive disorder. I joke about my children being afflicted with this condition. Actually, one of the Offspring does have leaning tendencies, but only under extreme duress. He washes his hands when he's extremely stressed. It can be a strange sensation as a parent to watch such things take control of your child.
Normally, though, our "OCD" is limited to topics of interest. At least, interesting to us. Them. Me. The Offspring will obsess about certain subjects as nauuuusssseeeeumm. Currently, video games (one in particular) and history, circa 3 AD - 40AD. For those of you who may be lost in the date margin, that's the era of Jesus' birth, reign and death. We have the fall of Rome in there...stupid Nero, and the rise of the British Empire looming on the horizon. Throw in a little law, logic and economics and you've summed up what we are currently discussing sometimes without coming up for air.
Can't say that I don't appreciate the enthusiasm. Especially for the very astute observations in moments of perceived injustice. I queried buck-buck #1 about being a lawyer. He told me that he wanted to argue, debate, not bury himself in legal precedence. In his words, BORING. Hear, hear child. Besides, he tells me that lawyers are *bleep*. I need to work on how I sway that argument, perhaps my influence is a little one sided.
For the past several years my "OCD" has lodged firmly in orientation. Specifically orientation and conservative ecclesiastical interpretation of ones orientation. But, because how you construe or delineate the aspects of orientation with the beliefs that you hold, I would say that those beliefs are most assuredly subject for debate. I am told, in varying ways, that the beliefs one holds, are not up for debate. I always get something caught in my throat when I hear those words. Not-up-for-debate. Really.(Can you see me raise one eyebrow and caulk my head?) I'll say it again, Rrreally. It's not a question, it's a statement. Rrreally! You must not have recently planted yourself at MY church. Because, it most certainly IS, up for DEBATE.
Let's get our ducks in row, shall we. It isn't up for a fight. It is open for debate, argument or fervent discussion. Now, I don't know that I want to engage in an argument with you about the existence of God, with a capital 'G'. Unnnnlesssss, you reeeeally want to go there. But, in terms of how you appertain that 'God' and his role in our social system. Oh, oh, oh oh oh! It most certainly is debatable.
Now hold on there, you say. Beliefs are a choice, and choice isn't a debate. Well, beliefs are, to a degree, a choice. But, a society cannot engage someone who basis his views of anything, orientation specifically, on ecclesiastical authority alone. Like unreasoned emotion, unanswerable religious authority is, well, unanswerable. The ONLY legitimate response is belief and unbelief. If one insists that God tells him the grass is blue, and makes no other statement to support the claim, it is difficult to have a fruitful dialogue with him. In fact, it is, impossible. The prejudices that shape our interpretation and practice of our beliefs is a most important debate. Prejudice molds our interpretation of what we believe. It just does.
If you choose to believe that there is a higher power, a higher authority, or a God, that manipulates this system, or Universe if you will, even determines the human experience, then, regardless of how that is molded by your prejudice, that choice is not up for debate. (take a deep breath and read it again. I checked to see that it made sense.) But, and there is always a but, no matter how I loathe the term, when your interpretation of your choice in belief encroaches on my person, being or ability to function in society, then my friend, we have a debate. And that belief, is up for the challenging. In other words, if the God tells you the grass is blue and it has no impact on me, fine. But if it begins to dictate how I am TOLD to see the grass, we have a problem.
The beliefs of thousands throughout the ages have determined the functional existence of smaller, weaker minorities. If the minority poses no real threat, then it is of great significance how we impose our beliefs on that minority. Look how early Christians were treated by Rome. How slaves were treated in society. How serfs were treated by Lords. How subjects were treated by Kings. How the African American population was oppressed. How women were subjugated. And now, how the GLTBQ community is treated by religious conservatives. And everyone on that list, according to the oppressor, deserved the bad position, just look at the Bible. Scripture has been our justification for some of the most deeply internalized cultural beliefs. Beliefs, that according to some, are not up for debate? So do our prejudices mold our interpretation of the Bible or does the Bible mold us? And if it is a 'choice' to believe, then you say that I cannot challenge your beliefs? Because you believe in God and the Bible is the word of God and your belief is a choice and not up for debate......Rrrrreally.
Are beliefs up for debate? Yes, they most certainly are. With very few exceptions. You can be atheist and question my belief in God. I can question your lack of a belief in a higher power. Simplistically, it has no bearing on our private conduct. You are atheist? In the confines of your private place, I can't question that. You believe in God? Christ? Joseph Smith as a prophet? In the confines of your private world, there is no room for correction. But we can't function in this place we call a Republic, we cannot run a democracy without the debate of our beliefs. Our beliefs dictate what we deem necessary to legislate. What we deem moral and immoral. How we interpret the most fundamental of laws, is always a matter of our internal prejudice and belief. "Do all you have agreed to do", "Do not encroach on other persons or their property."
We need to debate it. We need to understand one another and we need to be able to separate where necessary and mesh where appropriate. If you don't question my beliefs, nor I yours, because they are ultimately "a choice", then we can only move in one direction, or not at all. And that movement is not forward. It IS debatable. Oh, it most certainly is. By the way, who open this can of worms and rocked the boat!?!? And where did I set those damn oars. That damn bridge engineer quit so I gotta' row a boat across this chasm......could you throw me a frickin' rope? Puhleeeaase.....
Obsessive compulsive disorder. I joke about my children being afflicted with this condition. Actually, one of the Offspring does have leaning tendencies, but only under extreme duress. He washes his hands when he's extremely stressed. It can be a strange sensation as a parent to watch such things take control of your child.
Normally, though, our "OCD" is limited to topics of interest. At least, interesting to us. Them. Me. The Offspring will obsess about certain subjects as nauuuusssseeeeumm. Currently, video games (one in particular) and history, circa 3 AD - 40AD. For those of you who may be lost in the date margin, that's the era of Jesus' birth, reign and death. We have the fall of Rome in there...stupid Nero, and the rise of the British Empire looming on the horizon. Throw in a little law, logic and economics and you've summed up what we are currently discussing sometimes without coming up for air.
Can't say that I don't appreciate the enthusiasm. Especially for the very astute observations in moments of perceived injustice. I queried buck-buck #1 about being a lawyer. He told me that he wanted to argue, debate, not bury himself in legal precedence. In his words, BORING. Hear, hear child. Besides, he tells me that lawyers are *bleep*. I need to work on how I sway that argument, perhaps my influence is a little one sided.
For the past several years my "OCD" has lodged firmly in orientation. Specifically orientation and conservative ecclesiastical interpretation of ones orientation. But, because how you construe or delineate the aspects of orientation with the beliefs that you hold, I would say that those beliefs are most assuredly subject for debate. I am told, in varying ways, that the beliefs one holds, are not up for debate. I always get something caught in my throat when I hear those words. Not-up-for-debate. Really.(Can you see me raise one eyebrow and caulk my head?) I'll say it again, Rrreally. It's not a question, it's a statement. Rrreally! You must not have recently planted yourself at MY church. Because, it most certainly IS, up for DEBATE.
Let's get our ducks in row, shall we. It isn't up for a fight. It is open for debate, argument or fervent discussion. Now, I don't know that I want to engage in an argument with you about the existence of God, with a capital 'G'. Unnnnlesssss, you reeeeally want to go there. But, in terms of how you appertain that 'God' and his role in our social system. Oh, oh, oh oh oh! It most certainly is debatable.
Now hold on there, you say. Beliefs are a choice, and choice isn't a debate. Well, beliefs are, to a degree, a choice. But, a society cannot engage someone who basis his views of anything, orientation specifically, on ecclesiastical authority alone. Like unreasoned emotion, unanswerable religious authority is, well, unanswerable. The ONLY legitimate response is belief and unbelief. If one insists that God tells him the grass is blue, and makes no other statement to support the claim, it is difficult to have a fruitful dialogue with him. In fact, it is, impossible. The prejudices that shape our interpretation and practice of our beliefs is a most important debate. Prejudice molds our interpretation of what we believe. It just does.
If you choose to believe that there is a higher power, a higher authority, or a God, that manipulates this system, or Universe if you will, even determines the human experience, then, regardless of how that is molded by your prejudice, that choice is not up for debate. (take a deep breath and read it again. I checked to see that it made sense.) But, and there is always a but, no matter how I loathe the term, when your interpretation of your choice in belief encroaches on my person, being or ability to function in society, then my friend, we have a debate. And that belief, is up for the challenging. In other words, if the God tells you the grass is blue and it has no impact on me, fine. But if it begins to dictate how I am TOLD to see the grass, we have a problem.
The beliefs of thousands throughout the ages have determined the functional existence of smaller, weaker minorities. If the minority poses no real threat, then it is of great significance how we impose our beliefs on that minority. Look how early Christians were treated by Rome. How slaves were treated in society. How serfs were treated by Lords. How subjects were treated by Kings. How the African American population was oppressed. How women were subjugated. And now, how the GLTBQ community is treated by religious conservatives. And everyone on that list, according to the oppressor, deserved the bad position, just look at the Bible. Scripture has been our justification for some of the most deeply internalized cultural beliefs. Beliefs, that according to some, are not up for debate? So do our prejudices mold our interpretation of the Bible or does the Bible mold us? And if it is a 'choice' to believe, then you say that I cannot challenge your beliefs? Because you believe in God and the Bible is the word of God and your belief is a choice and not up for debate......Rrrrreally.
Are beliefs up for debate? Yes, they most certainly are. With very few exceptions. You can be atheist and question my belief in God. I can question your lack of a belief in a higher power. Simplistically, it has no bearing on our private conduct. You are atheist? In the confines of your private place, I can't question that. You believe in God? Christ? Joseph Smith as a prophet? In the confines of your private world, there is no room for correction. But we can't function in this place we call a Republic, we cannot run a democracy without the debate of our beliefs. Our beliefs dictate what we deem necessary to legislate. What we deem moral and immoral. How we interpret the most fundamental of laws, is always a matter of our internal prejudice and belief. "Do all you have agreed to do", "Do not encroach on other persons or their property."
We need to debate it. We need to understand one another and we need to be able to separate where necessary and mesh where appropriate. If you don't question my beliefs, nor I yours, because they are ultimately "a choice", then we can only move in one direction, or not at all. And that movement is not forward. It IS debatable. Oh, it most certainly is. By the way, who open this can of worms and rocked the boat!?!? And where did I set those damn oars. That damn bridge engineer quit so I gotta' row a boat across this chasm......could you throw me a frickin' rope? Puhleeeaase.....
posted by Molly Sue at
9:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home