It is not in our nature to be so accepting of change and new ideas. In many ways, being too open to everything can leave one vulnerable and easy to manipulate. Stubbornness can be viewed as a relatively short-term defense mechanism but that by no means justifies it, just as resorting to physical violence before diplomacy is also not justified. That's why I feel so strongly about the way that we should carry out discourse in our society. Why are certain things such taboos when they should seriously be discussed rationally, openly and objectively? I believe it is unethical to to bring up a serious topic that affects our society and specific groups within societies without having an open mind. If one is predetermined to stand his/her ground without any intention of critically analyzing and possibly being persuaded then that person has no business being in any part of the discussion.
The reason I bring this up is because for the past couple of years I have been studying international politics and business more than I ever had before. I have also been involved with the international business world and have observed a plethora of different views, backgrounds and opinions on everything from culture, history and art to business, politics and religion. These experiences in the last couple of years have greatly changed my view of the world and also greatly changed many of my opinions that I once held so strongly. Just to put my point into more real terms, I'll give an example of what I mean.
Religion: What is it? What does it mean to me? Why do I have it in my life? If I am going to base my life around a core belief then I should certainly make sure it is sound and that I can agree with every bit of it, certainly. Any compromise would surely be unacceptable. When I was a child I was indoctrinated in religion, which meant that I pretty much had no choice other than to be a part of the same church and belief system as my parents. And this also means that even though I could decide to be religious or not, I had no knowledge of such options in my youth. Indoctrination is total envelopment; family, friends, community, everyone I knew was religious. But that certainly doesn't affirm validity. Now, having been indoctrinated, was I able to listen to information that might contradict my infused worldview? If I hold the Bible to be the word of God, could I embrace the nice parts and ignore the deplorable parts? I had battled with this dilemma for many years. Actually, ever since I heard the story of Noah's flood I was conflicted. As a young child I argued with myself over and over about how God could be a perfect and loving God yet still consider his own creation to be wicked and resort to global genocide as the best option. Also, in the old testament, rape and murder over harmless "crimes" are not only condoned but mandated. Some stories of mandated slaughter of entire races of people and are told as children's stories. And if we relate these kinds of things to modern day, they would be considered some of the greatest atrocities of all time but since they were in the Bible and performed by the Jews as commanded by God then they are stories of glorious victory. Imagine a church group coming to Taiwan and slaughtering all of the Buddhists and destroying their temples just because they didn't believe in our God. That is what I can't reconcile and so I must be morally honest with myself and drop such a sadistic endorsement.
Now, on the other hand, some might say that the New Testament changes everything. I do believe that Jesus did state that what was said in the Old Testament should still stand, which would be reasonable considering that the Old Testament wasn't thrown out after the second installment. Nevertheless, I was often troubled with the rigid black and white of salvation offered by Christ. Because salvation requires faith, that would mean that salvation requires a suspension of reason. If I want to reasonably conclude whether the historical facts in the Bible are true or not then I would and have honestly concluded most of them to be false. Most historical facts in the Bible absolutely do not match up with actual history. So then, by making this reasonable conclusion I am inevitably damned no matter what kind of a good and otherwise ethical person I might be. Whereas someone of lesser virtue but stronger faith might find salvation by way of either ignorance or shear stupidity. I also cannot reconcile this fatal flaw in such a simple system.
Since I believe it is better to be an ethical person, a loving person and someone who holds the virtues of equality and justness in high regard rather than to be a person of great religious faith then I cannot reconcile the two if that faith requires me to act against those virtues. This is called an objective world view and it means that I don't presume anything. Those virtues were taught, learned and what I consider to be ultimately and universally good.
Hopefully my point is clear enough in that example so that the same process could be reapplied to other examples of taboo issues of our modern day. It is incredibly important that we honestly analyze how our conclusions are made. The happiness and well being of real people are at stake and that is something that we must take very seriously. If one decides to unjustly consider it an abomination or something hideous and unnatural for two men or two women to get married and raise a family together then that person must seriously understand why his/her claims are so strongly believed before ruining the chance for such great happiness in those people's lives. Especially when homosexuality is just as much of an abnormality in nature as my unusual height. To assume otherwise is to be ignorant to scientific fact which, as far as I am concerned, should eject such a person from any serious conversation on the matter. Being strong in your convictions is a good thing as long as your convictions stand for something good and we should be constantly analyzing that key aspect of our convictions, is it true and good? If you can honestly conclude that it holds up, then great! If not then you should have the courage to drop it. I was very scared to drop my virtue of faith because I was constantly reminded of the consequences for my whole life. But when it doesn't hold up then I have to let go, anything less would be dishonest and I cannot live with that. Surely, if I'm wrong then at least a truly loving and all knowing God would understand my true intentions and not punish me for bold honesty in the face of rejection and possible hatred by my peers.
What is objectively good in this world? Well being for all creatures and everything in nature that sustains us, peace and cohabitation with mutual and cooperative progression amongst all humans working together? Or further conflict and oppression based on ancient teachings from people with an extremely limited understanding of the world in which they lived? Objectivity and opendmindedness will lead to peace and progress much faster than the stubborn nature that is found in a subjective world view. Saying things like, "I'm a republican so I'm going to vote for him" gets us nowhere. True change takes courage and if you want to ignore the necessity for change and objectivity then you're only being a part of the problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment