I'm currently reading a book published in 2012, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, by Jonathan Haidt. The content is tapping crevices in my life -- probing some of the blindness in those crevices.
In one of the crevices sits my awareness of how my harmful experiences with Knapp still influence me. This was made more apparent to me when Trump got elected. And also, that friends and good people actually voted for the madman.
Sadly, I see nothing redeemable about Knapp. (A mindset I am endeavoring to mediate.) Likewise, I see nothing redeemable about Trump. Nothing. And that bothers me. Up until my Knapp experience, I could always(?) find something redeemable in another human being.
Another crevice it's tapping is in regard to "rights."
For years, especially since leaving The Way, I've pondered, What makes a right, a right? What are the universal human rights? Who decides these rights are rights? What is the standard?
It's not something I've been diligently studying, but it's been on my mind simmering. Occasionally articles, quotes, etc. cross my path and spark the continual questions. Lately, that "occasionally" has become "regularly."
Recently, I asked a friend: "What do you think makes a right, a right?"
My friend's response included, "The Declaration of Independence says all men have the right to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'"
I responded, "I read that it was originally drafted as *'life, liberty, and the pursuit of property.'" I didn't mention some of my back-thought, like my questioning of the real motives behind our "founding fathers." The problems in our country go back far beyond Trump or Bush or Kennedy or FDR, depending on whose side one chooses.
My point being that just because the Declaration declares a right a right, doesn't make it so.
In the book Silent Spring, Rachel Carson quotes a French biologist, Jean Rostand: "The obligation to endure gives us the right to know."
That makes total sense to me. If we are to endure as a species we have a right to know about whatever could make us extinct.
Is the "obligation to endure" a standard by which a right can be measured as a legitimate right, a reasonable right?
**The Way taught, and I guess still teaches, that Christian believers as children of God have "sonship rights." These are righteousness, justification, sanctification, redemption, and the ministry of reconciliation.
I left The Way in 2005.
*I later searched "life, liberty, pursuit of property." It was not in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence. The rights of "life, liberty, and property" are attributed to John Locke. Some historians postulate that Jefferson substituted "pursuit of happiness" for "property." John Locke's actual words are "life, liberty, and estate," penned in his Two Treatises on Government published around 1690. Locke penned the phrase "pursuit of happiness" in his 1690 essay Concerning Human Understanding. This link offers a side-by-side comparison of sections of Locke's Two Treatises and the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration: John Locke's theories put into practice.
**Link: Wierwille on Sonship Rights.
~*~
The Righteous Mind is a stimulating read, confronting at times. It encourages thought and thought behind thought. It's challenging, engaging, and validating. It takes me back to a subject I pondered for years, People behave the way they do for reasons. That doesn't necessarily excuse one's behavior. But if we can see the "whys" behind that behavior, would that maybe help us live more harmoniously? Not homogeneously. But rather like the black and white keys on the piano.
I like Haidt's manner of presentation -- respectful and inviting dialog. The experiments he shares fascinate me. Here's a link to a sample: Haidt: WEIRD Morality and Style of Thought.
~*~
No comments:
Post a Comment