Say Again…?
Life is self-sustaining motion.
There is life because there is room for life.
Life is worthwhile because it is fun.
Abortion as an Issue…
The problem with abortion as an “issue” is that it is impossible to discuss abortion–either for or against–as a matter of public policy (or law) without reducing women of reproductive age–and all people, by association–to the status of breeding livestock.
“Pro choice” proponents are no less guilty of this slander than those advocating “Pro Life.”
The only appropriate course of action concerning abortion as an issue is to support the removal of the notion of abortion from legislative consideration of any kind, at every level. This is a purely pragmatic position. Consider: Any species whose members will allow _anything_ to interfere _in any way_ with the relationship between parents and their children necessarily depends on sheer numbers for survival. The quality of the individual members of the species matters only enough so that sufficient individuals will not allow–or will survive–interference with this axiomatic relationship to ensure the species’ survival. In short, limited interference is tolerable, i.e., it works.
But it works, let us not forget, for herds.
A brief re-visit to a dream…
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. —Dr. Martin Luther King
I really know very little about Dr. King beyond what I read in the papers and heard on the evening news and the occasional biography or expose. Then I read this sentence one more time not too long ago and it finally hit me just how deep and profound his thinking must have been. It’s because of the last phrase, “by the content of their character.” The civil rights movement, as I have always understood it, seemed to focus almost exclusively on the prior part of the statement and with good reason, I suppose. So many people have been (and still are) judged by the color of their skin, it would seem to be enough–if not a blessing from Heaven–to realize just this much.
As grand as the realization of just this much of the dream would be, I do not believe that this was nearly the whole of Dr. King’s point when he said this. I believe that his point was his dream that his children (and by inference, all people) be judged “by the content of their character.” Think about this. This was the leader of the Civil Rights Movement talking about his dream for all people, not just “persons of color”.
By the best of my thinking, it wasn’t necessary to “go this far” to get his point across. By the best of my recollection, no one has ever seemed to focus on these few words and their importance. They seem to have just quietly waited on the sideline, as it were, to be recognized for their profound importance and, I believe, as the next step in the evolution of Civil Rights. I believe that a person who is able to rise to the prominence that Dr. King achieved would be a thoughtful and deliberate person and that such a person would not include words in a speech of this importance without carefully thinking it through. I think these words were not necessary to make his case for civil rights. So, I think their inclusion must have been deliberate and so the sentence was meant to mean exactly what it says.
Look again at the first part of the sentence. It mentions only the children. No hint of a hope that such a thing could occur for the parents. I would agree. Racism, one of the great meaningless terms in human history, will live on for a few generations more and then it will be gone. Why am I so sure? Because it only makes sense.
Anyway, these are the things that went through my head when I finally really read his speech for the first time. It was (and still is) a breath-taking revelation for me. That must have been an awesome, electrifying day. I wish I could have been there. Then again, maybe not…
Hillel the Prophet
What is hateful to yourself do not do to another. That is the whole Law. The rest is mere commentary. –Hillel the Prophet
“What is hateful to yourself” – What _is_ hate? I think it’s what you feel toward something or someone you could have loved but you have come to wish for its destruction. How do you know something is hateful? Watching someone else being hateful to you will teach you much. However you come to know what is hateful, Hillel does not seem inclined to explain what “hateful” is, as if he is content to leave that as an exercise for the student. I like that.
“do not do to another.” – Do not do hateful things to another. Another what? Well, again, he doesn’t say. So it could be almost anything that you might regard as “another”. Now, if that isn’t the most wonderful way to describe your responsibilities to yourself and to “another”…
“That is the whole Law.” – Is it possible there is no more to it than this? Can you imagine what it would be like to live among people who accepted this as “the whole Law”? How lively life would be, how diverse life would be, how interesting people around you would be, how free of each other we would be.
“The rest is mere commentary.” – All of those millions of pages of “commentary”.
1. There is an inherent, ennobling trust in human kind in deciding, as Hillel apparently did, that we can all live reasonably well together simply by not doing things to others that we consider “hateful” in ourselves.
2. This is one of my favorite features: This says absolutely nothing about what we should do. It only speaks of what we should not do. It’s like having a map that shows you only the potholes.
3. I think it finds a truly perfect balance between the reponsibilities we have toward ourselves and the responsibilities we, as members of societies, accept towards others.
Footnote: This is the traditional answer given by Hillel (A contemporary of Jesus, as I understand it) in response to the demand of an impatient unbeliever that he be taught the whole of the Torah while he (the unbeliever) stood on one foot. There are probably as many variations as there are translations. This is the one I like best. The phrasing of the first sentence is arranged in varying ways. Typically, the word “Torah” is used instead of “Law”. Often the directive, “Now go study it.” is appended. However, Hillel’s intent is unmistakable in all of them. I suspect his actual response referred to the Torah and included the directive. I like to think he didn’t smile when he said it (on the outside).
It’s like this..
It’s impossible for me to conceive of a rewarding, fulfilling life that does not involve peanut butter.