The Golden Rule

Well, one week down, fifty-one to go. I said I'd update more regularly, and so far I've kept my word, now it's just a matter of how long it will last. All this consistency might be getting to me. I've been procrastinating more and more lately, as I have yet to file my taxes and homework is increasingly falling into the to-do pile. On the other hand, I always get lazier as the semester goes on and I haven't sent my taxes in before the fifteenth in three years.

Anyways, like I said in a previous post, there have been a lot of topics on my mind as of late, and because of my brevity vow I can no longer cram all of them into one essay-length post. I'll start with a bit of a follow-up, lately on Nightly News they've been running these segments highlighting people who have been giving of themselves to help others through this economy. Although I do applaud those who help others, the longer the segment goes on the more I feel it might be helping people to lose perspective. The viewer e-mail that started it all talked a lot about needing to hear some good news and hearing too many dismal things in the news about the economy. I mentioned in my last post how I don't believe that is the best thing to want right now, and how people can isolate themselves from what others are going through in this crisis. NN ran a segment last week that finally seemed to let up on the feel-good tone and bring us back down to earth. This segment was about a tent city that has formed, made up of people who have lost their jobs and their homes. I really liked it because I think it's important to keep perspective, and to not just try to make yourself feel better constantly. People are suffering in this recession, and we need to be cognisant of what they're going through. You can watch the segment here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619

One more bit of news before I move on, the captain who had been kidnapped by Somali pirates was returned safely today. If you haven't been following the story, it's a little unbelievable. During a pirate hijacking, a commercial boat captain decided to offer himself up as a hostage to save his crew, and last night he was saved from his captors by Navy SEAL snipers. The situation still proves to be dangerous, as pirates still hold an estimated 230 sailors from around the world hostage and have promised retribution against the rescue. The U.S. has promised action, but I don't know that military might is necessarily going to solve things. Like insurgents in the Middle East, these pirates have resolve. I think that with the evolution of global societies and armed conflict, we need to be aware not just of the military implications but of the socio-ecnomic implications. Of course we cannot lay down for these pirates, but we also need to be mindful of why they commit these acts and how global poverty is affecting these coastal countries that are becoming havens for pirates.

In other global news, President Obama has promised to work with Russia towards mutual nuclear disarmament. Some people have been criticizing the move, but I think it's not only a good move, it's pragmatic. People have been bringing up that one of the largest factors contributing to the lack of a nuclear strike since Nagasaki is the threat of mutually assured destruction. Basically, if any country launches a nuclear strike they can be pretty sure that some country will respond in kind. I'm not denying this, in fact I completely understand and support the concept. I have heard a lot recently about Iran and North Korea launching nuclear strikes, and I just laugh. No country, as long as there is a chance of retaliation, not even Iran or North Korea, is going to launch a nuclear attack, period. Generally, I wouldn't agree with using the threat of attack to repel attack, but the threat of nuclear strikes is so great, the potential loss of life so high, that in this case mutually assured destruction may be the only thing preventing lives from being lost and the only sure-fire way to do so.

So why, then, am I supporting the President's pledge to step down nuclear arms? First of all, because we do not need extremely large nuclear stockpiles to keep the threat of mutually assured destruction alive. Second, total disarmament is not going to happen in my lifetime, fact. It's probably not going to happen in the next generation's lifetimes. I do hope, though, that eventually all countries will be able to step down their arsenals at least to the point that no one has one large enough to do anything but assure they are not attacked by a nuclear strike. At any rate, we'll never make any progress on the issue if we don't set goals and mindsets. Obama's promise is just that, setting a goal and a mindset of eventually being able to live without the threat of nuclear arms, even if that will never happen in his lifetime. I don't see anything wrong with saying that, especially considering the comment was made in an attempt to reach out to Russia. If we can make collaborative efforts with other countries on issues like nuclear policy, we will be one step closer to undoing the damage that was done to our national reputation in recent years.

Now, finally, value issues. I've got a lot of them, so I think I'll tackle them one by one. Today, gay marriage. A few states have made gay marriage legal, and California's challenge to Prop 8 is coming up soon. I have to be honest, I was pretty disappointed with where the country's laws stood after the recent elections. Like I've said before, it's hard for me to think of all that homosexuals in this country have gone through just to be treated as equals and then look at a situation like what happened with Prop 8 without being a little disenchanted. I've approached the issue in many ways, and I don't think anything I have to say won't be repeating something I've already said, but we keep revisiting the issue so I guess I'll just repeat myself: I see no reason why anyone should be allowed to restrict anyone's rights based on their personal beliefs. What right do we have? It is just hypocritical to the nth degree for these religious zealots to go around complaining about the government restricting their rights over the smallest things, then turn around and think they have a right to use the government to enforce their own personal beliefs. Like I said in a previous post, would it be okay for me to get a group of voters together and outlaw straight marriage? "But that's different," people say. Alright , fine, how about a ballot proposition to outlaw marriage between people who give each other oral sex, or between two heterosexuals who have anal sex? Why can't we go into straight people's personal lives and pass legislation based on their sexual preferences? I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's hypocritical to say you believe in personal freedom and then turn around and think you can vilify people and restrict their rights based on their personal lives.

I am glad, however, to see that some states are getting it. I'm glad to see that more people are finally coming to their senses about this issue and realizing the futility of trying to make the law reflect one group's values. Hopefully this kind of thinking will start to spread and those people who think they can legislate Christian values to the rest of the world will start to get the message that we are a global society and we are going to have to learn to get along with each other, despite our personal qualms about certain behavior.

I was in a conversation recently with someone who implied that being raised a Christian makes you a better person, gives you a sense of values. I've been in many of these conversations and it never ceases to amaze me how often I have to show to people that atheists and agnostics are not bad people who are devoid of values. This conversation was going a little differently, though. It eventually came to why this person believed being a Christian made you a better person, and the answer they finally arrived at was because of the golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I found that answer very ironic, as I don't believe many of the Christian movements in this country seem to take that too seriously. Christians are constantly legislating their values to others, saying we need to be a Christian country, and so forth. Is this adhering to the golden rule? If they think it's alright to ban gay marriage, would they be offended if Christian marriage was banned? Would they like it if instead of the Bible being taught in public schools, as some of them propose, the Koran was taught? Would they be alright with mandatory abortions, except in certain cases where it was deemed necessary to keep the population up? No, they would be vehemently opposed to it, so why are they alright with being on the other end? That person said that the golden rule is the cornerstone of Christian values. If that is true, then I think some of these Christian political movements need a refresher course.