| Moral Values |
|
“Moral Values” and Politics; Far Right Style One person’s moral value can be another’s bogus claim. What is needed is a standard of moral values on which all Americans can agree. Our history and revered documents of principle have provided this. A clear code of morality in America, that is, in how we relate and treat one another, is inscribed in our national Constitution, particularly in the Preamble. These principles can bear no compromise because to compromise them is to destroy their power and authenticity. Before I can discuss the important topic of “moral values” let me present a discussion of a code of morality in America, implied by our founding principles, to which all American citizens, and her permanent guests, are pledged and bound. The Obligation of “Moral Values” in America There is a clear guide to moral obligation for Americans in relationship with other Americans. It is stated unambiguously in the Preamble of our Constitution: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. The words are moving. Still, they need to be put to common meaning so that all can be held to the same test, thus to reduce conflict and misunderstanding. Let’s try to do that, in this case, phrase by phrase: “We the people of the United States” This means all the people of the country. Not some, nor most, not this group or that, but all the people. It means what goes for one must go for all. It means what is done for one group or by one group, must apply equally to all. What is good for one must be good for all. What is bad for one, must be bad for all. “In order to form a more perfect union.” A “more perfect union” starts with the above premise, “what is good for one must be good for all, what is bad for one must be bad for all.” “Union” reflects relationship and what is done in the name of that relationship. The first premise can be called “the common good.” In America the common good is grounded in the Rights every citizen and resident has. These rights are conferred and protected by the Constitution to which all pledge allegiance. The second premise, that is the “Union,” relates to how we treat one another, politically and culturally. How we treat one another in our American union is defined and guided by the constitutional rights to which we are pledged, and are obligated to defend without exception, regardless of personal opinion, beliefs or feelings. “A more perfect Union” means one that is better than any past or present union. “Better” means a greater general adherence and effort to achieve the common good, that is, how we respect and protect the rights not only for ourselves but for every human being living in our country, the United States of America. To have a “Union” we Americans are required to respect and protect one another’s rights, and to pursue a “better” level of effort to achieve this obligation. If we fail to respect or protect one another’s rights, that is, to act for the common good, there is no union. There is conflict. By “conflict” I do not mean difference in perspective so long as the difference does not violate the fundamental obligation to respect and protect one another’s rights. For example, we have the right to worship or not to worship. We can disagree with one another on what to worship or to not worship at all, what to believe or not to believe, but we are obligated as Americans to respect and protect individual choice. And we are required to actualize this respect and protection to a “better” and higher, more consistent level, in order ‘to form a more perfect union.” In this case what is good for one and for all, the common good, is the right to worship or not to worship. What is bad for one and all, and a threat to the “union,” would be to deny or interfere with anyone’s, or any group’s, individual choice, or to impose one’s belief or choice, legally or oppressively, on another. It would be bad for one and all, and outside of any right, if a person or group, by acting on any belief, inflicts harm or repressive restriction of any sort on another person or group, or acts to influence any law that would do so. Such relationship is the foundation upon which the political structure of an American “Union” stands. “Establish justice” Within the framework of the common good and the idea of “Union” we the people are obligated to extend fair and equal treatment to, and between, every person and group, with no exception. This is justice. This includes the right of full access and opportunity with regards to any resource of health, growth, living condition and advancement. We the people are required directly, or through representatives we choose to carry out the governance of the union, to establish laws and regulations pursuant to this goal. We are required to faithfully practice this common good of fair and equal treatment for any and all who are accused of violating such law and regulations, with due process, hearing, trial and remedies. As Americans we are morally and logically required to practice such common good justice not only between ourselves but also between ourselves and every other person and nation in the world. In order to form a more perfect union, to preserve and enhance it, we must extend fair and equal treatment to all peoples and nations, otherwise great conflicts will arise. As in domestic conflict, world conflicts endanger the safety and well being of America. Conflict corrupts our morals because we are still vulnerable to such expedients as militarism, exploitation, delusions of superiority, and self aggrandizement in order to gain the advantage, and gain control over others. Such behaviors are always corrupting and destructive both to morality and stability. No amount of whipped up “patriotism” (as opposed to genuine patriotism as best demonstrated by our founding fathers - and mothers - in our struggle for independence) or temporary “victory” will change or prevent this human truism. In faithfully adhering to the principles of fair and equal treatment, we establish justice. “Insure domestic tranquility” “Tranquility” can be imposed on a society by harsh means: by police or military action, by suppression or repression, or by abuse of political power of a block of the population over the rest of the populace. This sort of “quiet” never lasts. The oppressed population always rebels because human beings, no matter how abject their social condition may be, have an inherent sense and awareness of being treated unfairly. Sooner or later they rise up and overthrow the oppressive faction. History is written by the efforts of humans striving for equality and justice. The struggle still goes on. By adhering to the principles of the common good, justice and union outlined above, domestic tranquility becomes a natural outgrowth. The cultural mechanisms of conflict and oppression, that which we call classism, elitism, racism, sexism and homophobia, ageism and childrenism ?and the like, cannot achieve enough power to disrupt society when the common good, union and justice is consistently and universally practiced. We Americans are bound to such principles by our moral and political pledges and legacy. Many people are taught the mechanisms of oppression, through daily language and behaviors, and grow up harboring such painful and harmful ideation. Many individuals and some groups act on these irrational compulsions to harm others. Their deep seated guilt at doing so motivates them to continue to inflict such harm, in order to repress the pain of remorse and powerlessness. Also the approval by “like-minded” peers, and their social circles, perpetuates their inhuman patterns of behavior. In part, this is how the psychology of oppression works. Fortunately, humans are inherently moral. We have an intelligent and natural sense, or if you will, urge, to be humane. This is stronger than destructive urges otherwise we would not still exist as a specie. We intuitively know that we are safer, happier, healthier and more successful when society has embraced peaceful cooperation and respect between and among all its peoples, rather than hostile competition for dominance and advantage. It is this urge in humanity that has produced progress. It is this urge that has seeded our great principles, and in our American experience, has produced a constitution potent with the power of humanity. It is this urge that forms the basis of morality. It’s this rational human urge that tempers our oppressive, fear-based, destructive behaviors towards one another. And it is, in a country such as America, dedicated to the principles of humanity, that this rational urge has a chance to grow and to instruct its people over time. It is for these reasons that we Americans are obligated to aspire to a more consistent, purer quality of common good, union, justice, fairness, equality and respect (especially for differences) among and between ourselves, and all others here and in the whole of humanity. More than police and military policy, it is all this that insures domestic tranquility. “Provide for the common defense.” It is immediately clear that we must devote some of our resources to defense. There are irrational forces in the world that, because of oppressive conditioning, are compelled to attack other people and societies. It is the warped mentality caused by oppressive conditioning that drives people to mount such attacks. Specific examples: As a child, Adolph Hitler was brutalized by his father. He grew up with rage, hate and an irrational perspective of the world. He linked up with other like “minded” people to found the fascistic Nazi regime. He exploited the post WW I frustrations and struggle of the German people, manipulating their emotions and fear into delusions of superiority. He provided scapegoats for their angers by whipping up nationalism, anti-Semitism, racism, homophobia and other classic oppressions in order to perpetuate his grip on power and advantage. (We have many such examples in the world’s past and present history.) His attack against other peoples and nations was the predictable outgrowth of such pathology. Our fight against this fascism was necessary. Unfortunately we don’t think about how we politically and economically supported Hitler’s growing power (trading with and selling the Nazi regime strategic materials, ostensibly as a defense against Communist Soviet Union; as a further example, Henry Ford built a slave labor factory in Germany during the Thirties). If we were brave enough to admit our collusion with past and present tyrants (e.g., the Shah of Iran, Pinochet of Chile, Noriega of Panama, Saddam Hussein) we could avoid repeating the same self-defeating and destructive policies. Our struggle against terrorism is the result of several factors: the centuries-old exploitation, religionism and racism by the West against the East and Islamic peoples (it overtly started with the Crusades), the reactive rage and hatred within Islamic ranks generated by this oppression, the failure in present times by the West to correct this condition (we still collude with the ruling factions of the have/have not nations for economic gain), targeting America as the icon of such oppression because we now loom as the dominant corporate power that perpetuates the exploitation. In the last two decades our failure to persuade Israel, especially the right wing politicians, to come to terms in an equal and just way with the Palestinians has fed the cancer of terrorism until it has grown to world-wide proportions. It is moral and imperative that we support the peace faction of Israel (which is great) to reach out and achieve a just peace. As for nations which perceive that America is a threat, we need to sit and talk with them as equals, with Iran and North Korea for example, rather than approach the problem arrogantly or belligerently, until mutual confidence in peaceful intentions is achieved. Now we must defend ourselves against the reactive violence we call terrorism. We will only solve the bloody and fearful conflict when we acknowledge history and take real measures to correct corporate/political behavior, and work to lift up the have/have not peoples to a status of equality and justice with the West. What of moral values in regards to the Iraqi conflict? Was it moral to topple the dangerous and murderous Saddam Hussein? On the face of it, yes. Is it moral to ignore the many other dangerous and murderous leaders in other countries? Of course not. Yet for political/economic and personal reasons our present administration chose to invade Iraq. This contradiction and inconsistency, while politically typical, is immoral. We went into Iraq on the premise of ridding the world of Saddam and his purported weapons of mass destruction. All right, we have done that. Is it moral to remain in Iraq and to engage in the killing and chaos? The administration has already declared that we don’t have to conform to the Geneva Convention as to the protection of unarmed “out of combat” opponents. Is this moral? Thoughtful people would say no. Others would argue that it is right to now move Iraq into a democratic system of government. Who declared this right? Was there a national survey taken of the Iraqi people to ask them what sort of system they wanted, what leaders they wanted? No, of course not. Once again it was the controlling powers, the Bush administration and the Coalition, who engineered the present provisional government in Iraq. Allawi, its prime minister, was sponsored by the controlling powers. As to the people of Iraq, many of whom are being crippled and killed in the present violence, one can suspect they are too numbed, too subdued by the overwhelming force of the occupiers, and now also intimidated by the insurgents, to speak out en masse. Under these conditions there is no other outcome but the violence of the insurgency. Can any of this fall under the cloak of moral value? Only one who is rigid or has a hidden agenda, and those conditioned by propaganda and the blame game, who need a scapegoat to displace their frustrations and fear, would say so. Applying the above discussed standard of morality (the common good, embedded in our constitution, what is good or bad for one and all, to which all Americans must subscribe, regardless of personal opinion and feeling) to the Iraqi situation, we can conclude that our behavior and policy is nothing but immoral. What is the moral thing to do now in Iraq? We must not continue to participate in the violence. Of course, now, we must do our best to protect the innocent. We must invite the real people of Iraq, their leaders, the mullahs, mayors and others to an ongoing conference dedicated to listening and finding out what they want. We must then stand out of their way to achieve what they want (even if it is not to our political/economic liking). We must then announce our honest intentions to replace our military with an army of humanitarian and construction workers to fully help rehabilitate the people and country. Then in an orderly fashion withdraw our armed forces. Not only will the world not see this as failure, they will acclaim us as the true heroes of justice, peace, and true models of the morality proclaimed in our universally admired principles. In today’s world we cannot provide for the common defense if we reserve one standard of moral behavior for ourselves and apply a different one to others. On a pragmatic, enlightened self- interest basis, we cannot provide for the common defense if we perpetuate or neglect the painful conditions in which the held- down people of the world live. The world is now too small, too interconnected for this or any other country to evade this truth. The combined will and riches of the West would be more than adequate to achieve world equality, justice and morality through implementing a sort of “Marshall Plan” for the struggling peoples of the world. This effort restored Europe after World War II. This means, for one thing, to discontinue collusion and cooperation with selfish leaders and rulers, and their patterns of uncaring aggrandizement. “Promote the general welfare” Doing the common good for one and all, and striving to achieve a more perfect union and a higher level of moral value, is a certain way to promote the general welfare of the people. This means we must pull together in fairly sharing our wealth and resources to ensure, among other things, that: 1) No child goes to bed hungry at night (presently studies show that at least one out of five children do exactly that). 2) That no one shall be deprived of decent health insurance and care, regardless of economic or social condition. 3) That no one shall be denied equal opportunity, access and protection under the law no matter what the circumstance and background of that person. 4) That no family, nor familial relationship, be neglected and abandoned to their patterns of abuse - emotional, physical, or sexual - that they learned and internalized from their previous generation. Statistics, studies and case histories are piled up to the sky showing that chronic psycho/emotional distress behavior and dysfunction, neglect and abandonment - from personal problems to anti-social and criminal behavior - are the result of family dysfunction and distress in which children are born, raised and conditioned. What needs to be done is a national outreach campaign of education, family support, counseling and awareness training. Money and resources expended this way would save the billions spent on health and human services, crime and prisons, divorce and broken homes, not to mention the costs due to curb sexual, racial, ethnic, religious, neighborhood and territorial conflicts that plague our nation. It is likely that our common burdens (e.g. taxes, worry) could be reduced were this to be done, rather than maintaining the enormous cost and distress of the status quo. Why must everyone, including those who benefit from the opportunity to earn a living and gain profits, be involved and responsible to protect and promote the common good and general welfare? Because this is the common standard of morality institutionalized in the Constitution of the United States. Everyone living and benefitting from this American opportunity is bound by history, nationally promulgated principle, human sacrifice and allegiance to that Constitution. Devotion to this standard is as sacred as any to one’s deepest belief and God, if we are to preserve and advance the quality of our beloved nation and its ideals. “Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” The common good requires that we must secure the blessings of liberty for one and all. The Constitution does not stipulate this or that person, this or that group to be blessed more than any other with such security. Nor does the Constitution infer favoritism towards any system of belief or ideology, no matter how fervently held. The Constitution confers the blessing of liberty to all, equally. “Moral Values” and the blessings of liberty: There are many issues regarding the scope of moral values. Such issues include, for example, the almost fully unrestricted access to guns, and now to assault weapons, and the slaughter of innocents and police on the streets, in the work place and schools, etc. The recent incident, reported November 23, 2004, where six hunters were shot dead by someone using an automatic rifle, is an example of this immorality. The right to bear arms refers to citizen militia, relevant to the urgency of our early history. It is this right that accrues to all that relates to the common good. The blessings of liberty, the common defense and the general welfare require that every person must be protected against careless or irrational use of firearms. This means that strict safeguards must not only be enacted but rigorously enforced as well. Another institutionalized immorality, especially now practiced by right-wing politicians, is cited in the LA Times, November 24, commentary section. It reports that Majority Leader of the House of Representatives Tom DeLay’s Republican colleagues gutted House rules that state that leaders must step down if they are convicted of wrongdoing. Mr. DeLay faces the possibility of indictment for criminal acts relating to fundraising in Texas. If he is convicted he can still keep his position as Majority Leader. The same article cites that House members and Senators have profited handsomely by pushing for legislation that favors big business. An example of this is that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn) has lobbied long and hard for medical malpractice “reform,” and he and his family own a hospital chain and a malpractice insurance company that benefit from such conflict of interest legislation. Sweetheart deals are common in the House and Senate (as well as in other branches of government - the Internet is full of such information). Another example is Mr. Bush’s and Mr. Chaney’s secret meeting with representatives of the energy industry, which may have affected national energy policy, details of which they refuse to disclose to the American public. This secrecy is a violation of the common good and general welfare. Their stubbornness is immoral. The article cites many more examples, and goes on to say “Consider how often members of Congress come to Washington with modest incomes and leave government service millionaires.” Another recent example of immoral conduct by the Bush administration is the nomination of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General of the United States. As legal counsel to the President, Mr. Gonzales advised Mr. Bush that part of the Geneva Convention (to which the U.S. is signatory), that relates to the treatment of prisoners taken in war is “obsolete” and “quaint.” This led to justifying torture and holding prisoners without due process. This also paves the way for other nations to torture and hold Americans without due process. This is a stark example of how our neglect of our principles can boomerang to harm us. Our Constitution protects human rights and due process. The President and his supporters are also beholden to act faithfully to the tenets of our Constitution. Do those who proclaim to be adherents to moral values really want people who act immorally in office? American voters who profess faithfulness to “moral values” act immorally by electing, returning to office, or supporting those politicians and officials who behave in immoral ways. In other countries such behavior is called corruption. In America the immoral and criminal behavior merits a wink and a chuckle. Business as usual. Immoral. Current urgencies of the “moral values” agenda The core of liberty, in American terms, is the right of speech, choice, privacy and equal protection under the law. In this context the following discussion is about the hot button topics that currently top the agenda of the far right-wing moral valuers and neocons: abortion, gay marriage, Social Security, health insurance, taxes, the relation between government and religion, stem cell research. On abortion: The blessings of liberty and the common good underpin the constitutional right to choice and privacy. This right is good for one and all. Choice and privacy perforce and logically confer the right over one’s body. There is no right to impose one’s act of choice and privacy, abortion in this case, on anyone else. Because one believes abortion under certain circumstances is justified is no reason to impose that belief on another. To do so is a violation of American principle and the Constitution. By the same token no one has the right to impose prohibition of abortion on anyone else. The argument against this is that a developing life inside a woman’s body, the fetus, is a separate human life and that the woman has no right to end that life. The popular controversy swirls around the question of when does the fetus actually become a viable human being, and at that point does abortion become a crime. But is the fetus a separate and viable human being? That it is human there can be no question. That it is a developing human being there can also be no question. It is not a giraffe nor a kitten fetus. But is it separate and viable (that is, able to exist on its own) and therefore not part of the woman’s body? The fetus is intimately, physiologically and biologically connected to, and dependent for its existence on, the woman’s body. It is also psychologically/emotionally connected to the woman’s system, since what happens experientially to the woman affects how the fetus’s developing central nervous system, brain and all, becomes psychologically formulated. The woman’s chemical and hormonal reactions to her experiences are transmitted into the fetus’s brain and nervous system. Dopamine, serotonin, adrenaline, steroids, cortisol, epinephrine and other transmitter substances and hormones, and their neural “messages” are the agents that condition and predispose a person’s psycho/emotional perspective and reactive system, and therefore the fetus’s pattern of life. If the mother experiences trauma, the fetus will be so affected. (Psychotherapy is one process that is used in the attempt to correct rigid, negative and dysfunctional, and other chronic distress patterns and behaviors installed during early conditioning). A woman’s arm, for example, is connected physiologically and biologically, even psychologically - since one’s arm is almost always involved in one’s reaction and behavior - to her body. Therefore she has the right of choice and privacy over her arm. By the same token, it is logical and just that a woman has the right of choice and privacy as regards her fetus. Any act in the attempt to change our laws and our Constitution as regards a woman’s right to abortion is an attempt to impose the philosophy and belief of one group on another. This is contrary to the common good (what is good for one is good for all- that is, the right to choice and privacy), the quest for a more perfect union and the sacred blessings of liberty. This is, in American terms, immoral. It is immoral to change our law as regards abortion before the question of separate and viable life of the fetus is finally and universally determined, because it would be an oppressive act of domination of one group over another. This is a characteristic of fascism. (No fascist thinks he is wrong.) This is an immoral violation of the American principles of union and justice, and the blessings of liberty to which every citizen of the land is beholden. On gay marriage: With regards to the American population and the American principles enshrined in the Constitution, delete “to” which all citizens are pledged to uphold, especially the obligation to form a more perfect union, each person’s identity as an American citizen supercedes every other component of personal identity. Put another way, one’s gender, religion, class, vocation and other aspects of self-identity may, indeed, be more personally important than his or her status as an American citizen. But in relation to how each person treats and respects another person’s rights, how each person remains faithful to the principle of securing the blessings of liberty to every other person, his or her identity as an American must trump all other claims of identity. Gay or straight, each American is first and foremost an American. As such he or she has the right to equality under the law, that is, to everything that is good and lawful for anyone else. All Americans are obligated to uphold our sacred constitutional principles to which they are pledged. The right to marry and all the rights accruing to married persons must be upheld by all the people who claim to be American, regardless of personal belief, bias or feeling. This is moral as regards the quality and value of American principle, and the quality and sincerity of each person who claims to be an American. Those who claim that gay marriage is a threat to the definition of marriage have been taught by peers and previous generations that homosexuality is somehow wrong, perverse or sinful, worthy of disdain, ostracization, and (by some folks) worthy of death. Also, many people equate homosexuality with sexual predation, the indoctrination or molestation of young people, or adults, and the like. This part is untrue. Sexual predation is far more prevalent among heterosexuals than homosexuals simply because there are so many more heterosexual people. Sexual predation has nothing to do with sexual orientation. It is a chronic distress compulsion rising out of how people are conditioned by such oppressive treatment and exploitation, usually by close ones, during their own youth. Some historical information may help to alleviate the bias, fear or hatred towards homosexuality and gay people. All through human history (at least recorded history) about ten percent of any given population has been homosexual in their orientation. Gay people do not proselytize other people. They generally confine their sexual activity among their own population. Never in history has it been shown that the homosexual life-style has affected or threatened that of the heterosexual community. Never in history has it been shown that homosexuality has been a threat to the tradition of marriage, despite the fact that many gay people also live in committed couple relations. The real threat to marriage actually comes from the fact that many, if not most, people, because of typical social “norms,” typical family and intimate relationship distress and dysfunction, and bias towards raising awareness and relationship counseling, grow up ignorant of what it takes to maintain harmonious and joyful relationships. Most of us reenact in our relations and marriages what we learned from our own models. Note that not only has the divorce rate grown to almost fifty percent, but also the deep dissatisfaction, silent distance, mutual misunderstanding and non-listening, cheating (or desire to cheat), addictive behavior and unhappiness that infects our marriages and intimate relations. This is the real threat against marriage, not the two gay guys or women living on the block. (Gay people experience the same conflict and distress in their intimate relations as we heterosexuals do.) Where does this bias towards homosexual people come from? Perhaps it was first inscribed in the Judeo-Christian bibles. It must be remembered that humans wrote these bibles, that humans interpreted the word of God. Homosexuality has been historically practiced without stigma or threat of social prejudice in, at least, Western civilizations, and often among the highest ranks. There is no record of such practice undermining general traditions such as marriage. What has contributed to the widespread bias and prejudice against homosexuals? There are two main factors. First, the religious view of homosexuality grew from generation to generation, through the repetition of myths and admonishments, distortions and dogma that characterized much of early religious training. Examples of such myth: that masturbation could lead to blindness - yes, people took this seriously - or that females were “dirty” because of their femaleness - an example of how the assignment of sin to Eve grew to society-wide sexist oppression over time. Secondly, elders, parents, teachers and religious folk, all participated in this growing myth, innocent in intention as they may have been, teaching the younger ones of each generation, until it was encoded as a societal oppression. We call this oppression homophobia. The growth of homophobia in society is also fostered in how men (and women) are socialized and conditioned. From the time of their earliest years, boys hear and learn that real men hold in their feelings, must produce victories over other males in sports, work, economic achievement, conquest of the opposite sex and “notches” in their belts. This is how boys are taught to prove their worth. Boys learn to bully one another, especially other boys who show feelings, appear to be sensitive or show interest in academia, art and activity outside the roughhouse and tough kind. Boys who show their “softer” side are labeled sissies and “fags.” They are ridiculed, ostracized and attacked. As boys enter wider society they hook up with the general population of similarly socialized men. The homophobic fear of, and hostility towards, homosexuality is based exactly on what they learned growing up. Homosexuality is perceived as a threat to their manhood, because, on an unconscious level, they remember the ostracization, ridicule and physical danger “sissies” and “fags” were subjected to. Their self-worth as men is tied up with what they learned about what a real man is supposed to be. Part of the homophobic behavior is to a) show other men how biased and hostile to gays they are, and thus gain the approval of their peers, and b) to show how domineering and superior to women they are, and thus gain both peer approval and admiration and respect from their fellows. Witness the extreme of this when some people actually do physical harm and death to gays, or batter and assault women. In order to have a healthy and more satisfying life, boys need to be supported to be fully human, to express their feelings and ideas, to explore every source of learning the natural world has to offer, from the sciences to academia to art to philosophy and religion, to vocational and avocational avenues, to all levels of sport and play. Being fully human means to be flexible and to respect as equals both men and women. Women are also socially conditioned to play unnatural, and thus unhealthy, roles. Girls are typically taught that they are weaker than boys (in contradiction to the empirical evidence, what we see with our own eyes, that girls are often as smart, strong and athletic as boys). Girls have typically been taught that to be feminine, and “attractive” to men, they must occupy themselves with “softer” activity, arts and crafts and homemaking skills. They must publically take a silent place behind the man, reserving their wisdom and insight in private, for their mate. They must support their man as the leader and dominant member of the family. They must defer to men, in general, in the public arena. Women are conditioned to depend on a man for their worth and survival. If a woman doesn’t have a man she is considered insufficient. Women are more allowed, socially, to express their feelings, to “cry” because this is the “weak” thing to do (according to gender conditioning), and the woman is supposed to be the weaker one. Men and women are socialized to believe that all this is the way we are. This is the basis for so much conflict and misunderstanding between the sexes. We each expect the other to be human (our unfulfilled needs compel us to expect the other to “parent” us - doesn’t work, does it?). As to sex, we perform for one another, we dramatize passion above and beyond normal functioning, in order to impress each other and to capture the other for ourselves, or at least for self-validation (“Oh, baby, you’re the best”, “Was it good for you?”, “No one can satisfy you like I can”, “I’m going to screw her/his brains out like he/she never had before,” and all that jazz). Progress has been made to overcome these neurotic, often pathological, social conditions, particularly since the early 1900s, and especially in the realm of women’s “liberation.” The male cause has moved more slowly, exactly because to express one’s voice and protest is to show one’s feelings and ideas. To admit needing to make changes means, to men, that they are not the perfect studs they are supposed to be. In order to transform ourselves towards normalcy and equality generally means, for men, that we must give up the myth of superiority and power, and for women to face the challenges of independence and equality. These are scary things for most people. This is why so many of us fight such human progress. This is the irony for men: their very conditioning entraps them; to be a “man” they must grit their teeth, hold in their feelings and live with pain, repression and emotional isolation. To try to handle the pain of this distress, many people descend into addictive behavior: over-eating, over-working, hyper-sexuality, alcohol, drugs, and many other forms of damaging behavior. The way women have been socialized is exactly why so many women join in efforts to maintain the status quo, and preserve male advantage in society, to their own detriment and suppression. All this is the way homophobia is embedded in sexism. We keep spreading and perpetuating the oppression, generally unaware of the harm it does. This harm is not only to gays, but also to heterosexuals, because the ideation of any oppressive perspective limits our view of life and therefore our relaxed enjoyment of life. The biased ideas perpetuate the negative effects of emotional dissonance, fear, anger or hate within our own psyches. We typically live our lives fearful of being disapproved of, which in turn destroys our natural self-esteem. This adds to the general tension we (numbly) carry. Tension causes unhealthy effects in our system. It has long been established that negative, distorted, biased and hostile socialization leads to a life full of tension, and mental and emotional trauma. Such internalized (chronic) distress leads ultimately to physical and mental illness. On the collective scale such general chronic distress leads to an unhealthy, unjust society. What does all this mean with respect to moral values and gay marriage? First, it means that our typical definition of marriage is grounded in our learned beliefs, our biases and ideology, our conditioned emotional response to homosexuality. To thus impose our definition of marriage on a minority of people as an enforcement of the law would be a function of such bias. It is a contradiction and a violation of the American principles and values, as defined in our Constitution, to which every American is pledged. Secondly, to try to change the Constitution to accommodate our biased and ideological definition is an effort to restrict the rights of a minority of people. No greater threat to the Constitution, thus to our general American ideals of morality and justice, can be imagined. This would be a step towards corrupting American society towards domination by the majority, or politically powerful, over the minority. This would undeniably be a step towards dictatorship and fascism. Our founding fathers knew first-hand the suffering and evil imposed on citizens by such corruption. Whether it is a dictatorship by a king or by an ideological sector is no matter. It was, for example, the Puritans, driven by their beliefs, who fostered spying by neighbor upon neighbor and burned women at the stake. It was the sacred purpose of our founders to protect the minority from the majority, the common people from the elite class. It was this purpose that guided the framing of our great ideals and documents in the cause of morality, equality and justice. These ideals bind us together as a nation. As a reminder, it is we the people who are obliged and responsible to foster the application of a more perfect union and to fervently preserve, protect and extend the blessings of liberty to every American and to every guest of America. It is therefore immoral, in terms of our American obligations to one another, to deny the right of marriage and the rights conferred by marriage, or any other right, to any sector of our population. It would be an immoral and dangerous corruption of the Constitution to install restrictions and limitations of established rights on any individual or group, in order to justify ideologically influenced legislation and law. A better way of defining marriage would be the union of two people committed to fully support, listen, communicate fully, respect as equal, share assets and burdens, defend and protect, abide in loyal intimacy, validate and inspire, uplift and enjoy one another. (Canada just agreed to this kind of definition) On tax cuts, Social Security and health care: Our American society is dedicated to, and promulgates, the principles of justice, the equality of rights, the general welfare and the blessings of liberty for each and every one. This is historical, this is our tradition and our cultural glue. This is the strength and success of our society. When the business of such a society is based on monetary value, money, in order to fulfill this dedication it becomes necessary to be moral and thoughtful in how public money is managed and used. This means that we must establish, maintain and keep viable a national treasury to carry out the goals of our Constitution and to actualize our dedications. This means that we must all pull together and contribute our fair and appropriate share of taxes, individual and business alike, in order to fulfill our national principles. Therefore it is immoral, in American terms, to cut taxes to such a degree that certain pockets of society, the lower middle class, the working poor and poor, children and seniors on minimum fixed incomes, are deprived of minimum resources and services, such as health care, sufficient food and safe living conditions and Social Security (presently in danger of ‘reform”). It is immoral to create tax loopholes and other means that favor the affluent to the detriment of over fifty percent of the population. Such cuts would incur increasing national debt that would burden future generations and thus impose on the middle and poor classes a harder struggle to survive. The result of such unchecked action would be to transform our America into a kind of “robber baron,” have and have not, banana republic that we have historically loathed and struggled against. Our current tax policy, under the Bush administration, supported by the millions of far right voters (to their own detriment), has just such an immoral character and danger. On Social Security and health Care Social Security was a historical step towards realizing the goals of our Constitutional principles. We achieved a state of morality that recognized our societal responsibility towards those who spend their entire lives working and contributing to the success of American society. We embraced the obligation to protect our seniors from falling into destitution and poverty in their older years when they were no longer able to compete and work in the national marketplace. Social Security also helps to bolster up children and parents of needy and poor families. The current administration, and its far right supporters, aim to privatize Social Security by allowing workers to devote part of the taxes they would pay into the program to be invested, instead, in the stock market. Why would this be immoral? First, the vagaries of the stock market, its wins and losses, pose a risk to investors. This is fine when one has disposable income to play with. But imagine if one, or a couple, in their senior years, depending on SS for a needed amount every month in order to survive, suffer losses due to falling stock prices? Their food, their medicine, their rent? Not just at all. Secondly, once a public entity such as Social Security is enfolded into the profit system (that’s what the stock market is) it is vulnerable to the whims and peculiarities of private enterprise. This is a great risk. Witness the business behavior of many since the deregulation of the airlines, of fuel and energy, the lax oversight of industry by the FDA, FCC and other government agencies in the late 1990s and during the Bush administration. Note the difficulties, the chances of fraud, corruption and bankruptcies that have afflicted such industries, and the enormous increase in personal bankruptcies during this time. Once an entity is bitten by the profit system, it becomes addicted to it by virtue of people acting on self interest. Thirdly, it is endemic how badly people manage their credit and their credit cards, how troubled and shackled by debt they become, confused as to how it happened and how to get out of it. In order to protect one’s investment in the stock market, one needs to have knowledge about the market’s workings and keep close scrutiny at all times on their accounts. Given the public record for this kind of responsibility, it could mean disaster for folks depending on Social Security by the investment route. Fourthly, when there is investment, someone makes a profit; it is not always the investor, but it always is the company offering its stock and always the brokers or managers handling the stock. It is immoral for such entities to profit from people’s Social Security funds, certainly in light of the fact that it is the dependent, often fragile, senior who is at risk. Fifthly, a transforming of the system to partial privatization would delete current funds that are needed to support present retirees. This means that the administration must borrow two to three trillion dollars (as it is estimated) to cover the period of change. Added to the national debt, this would greatly increase the burden and damage to the quality of life for our children and further generations. This would be an immorality. We are presently engaged in the struggle to accept our moral and practical obligation to provide national health care (“in order to form a perfect union and promote the general welfare...”), to ensure ourselves of a healthy society. We are beginning to understand our need to protect ourselves from the costs that poor health, vulnerability and illness of the millions of our citizens suffer when they have insufficient health support. We all - the rich, middle class and poor - are becoming aware that we share the burden of these horrendous costs. It is therefore immoral to allow the costs for health care to perpetuate the deprivation of care to the millions who cannot afford it. Based on the policy proposals by the present administration, many of the leading analysts predict a rise of seven percent in health care costs in the next decade. It is immoral to force people who live economically marginal lives to have to choose between decent food and the cost of medicine and medical service. high cost of health care is driven by the increasing profits of insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and “health” organizations. We are a profit driven economy, but we must not let excess profit undermine our national health. It is moral and necessary to provide a “safety net” of sufficient health care for every citizen, and permanent tax-paying guest, of our American nation. This sort of policy is consistent with the principles promulgated in the American Constitution, to which we are, like it or not, beholden. ryonic stem cell research regards embryonic stem cell research, once again it is the ideology of the far right, together with its agent in the White House, that has imposed a severe limit on such research. The irony and hypocrisy is that thousands of embryos are discarded from clinics and doctors’ offices in their treatment and research protocols monthly. Meanwhile, millions of people continue to suffer chronic illness and injury with little or no cure in sight. Science has progressed enormously and, if allowed, may produce help and hope for such suffering through embryonic stem cell research. Which is moral, preventing embryonic stem cell research for ideological reasons on the part of some of the population, or the possibility of hope and cure for millions of sufferers by using material that is otherwise discarded as waste? Americans the real question is can we permit the belief and opinion of some of the people to dominate the lives and choices of all of the people? The answer to this question is clear, in light of the fundamental principles and moral obligation to promote and protect the rights of privacy, choice and health (“the blessings of liberty”) of all the people, enshrined in our Constitution, regardless of belief, ideology or personal opinion. relationship between church and state founding fathers saw the wisdom, derived from first-hand experience, of enshrining protection for both religion and state by mandating a separation of these institutions. Government shall not endorse, favor or promote any religion, they ordained. They saw the damage and oppression of the state acting as an agent for religion, the disenfranchisement, domination, pressure and persecution of citizens who did not conform to the dictate of the favored religion. These are the immoral consequences of a theocracy, or even an informal but influential relationship between a state and a religion. far right fellow citizens are especially hostile to the theocratic governments that exist in some Islamic states. Yet they seem blind to their own urge to infuse fundamentalism and religious identities into our national polity. This is an immorality with respect to the cherished principles mandated by our Constitution, delete “to” which anyone who claims to be an American is pledged to uphold. America, moral values cannot be based on the beliefs, ideology or opinions of this sector or that sector of the population. Ours is a nation with many differing ideologies and opinions, often in conflict with one another. What holds us together as a nation is our code of principles inscribed by our founding fathers in the Constitution of the United States. Chief among these principles are the rights of free speech, privacy and choice, and equality under the law. These rank above all other values in our relationships and treatment of one another. To practice favoritism towards one sector over the rest in our polity and policy is a grave violation of our committed national principles. To make an amendment to the Constitution that disenfranchises any sector of its rights, actually or de facto, is to plant the seed of destruction in our Constitution and its principles and thus in American democracy. This is exactly why a clear separation of church and state was embedded in our founding principles. Changes to the Constitution must enhance and advance the rights and their protections for every American and every person living, and benefitting therefrom, in America. Changes must never reduce rights and protections of anyone, or our form of democracy will crumble. We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, are committed to uphold the spirit and the letter of our founding principles and values which, in spite of temporal emotions, have always persevered against the forces of extremism and zealotry.
|
||||
Discuss (2 posts)
|
Moral Values
May 17 2012 02:24:42 So, You can pick and choose with whatever the left's view is on moral issues and disregard everything you engage in as perfectly consistent with moral behavior
|
#132 |
|
Re:Moral Values
Mar 08 2010 05:05:23 I couldn't agree more with what you have written about our constitution and it's high moral standards and laws. Is the ideal and gold standard around the world. But it has been my experience in life that these high ideals and moral standards of treatment do not really apply to the average citizen, below a certain economic level, anyway. Allow me to tell you a story about an average, low income citizen's experience with the government, our law system and our unalienable rights under the Constitution. This citizen worked every day possible for a lifetime. This citizen was raised to believe that the law applies to all equally and that it put everyone on the same level. That we all had guaranteed, Constitutional Rights, as citizens under the law.
This citizen resided in a live/work/studio space, in an old warehouse building, in an industrial area. Had everything that this citizen found important in his home/place of business/art studio. But it set next to the cities newest economic engine, downtown redevelopment project. A large, 4 level shopping mall built in the middle of all of the derelict, old town buildings. Then they decided that this was turning out to be such a money maker, that they were going to spread out into the old industrial area and build high-rise hotels and condos and a baseball park and tie it all to the convention center, just a short distance away. So they sent out notices that they were going to relocate everyone in the development area. They set up a relocation center in the area and started giving people money to move and by law, a certain amount extra. Was supposedly for the extra rent that would have to be payed, for new rentals, for a two year period. So this citizen went and read the relocation laws of the state so he would know his rights and then went to talk to the councilor to start the process. First thing off, the councilor says how they had just payed someone that wasn't eligible to move because it was easier. First mistake to read the law, second mistake to ask them to do their job description, under the law. Would of thought that they were yelled at and slapped in the face, by their indignant reactions. How dare anyone ask a city/state agency to do their job description. So began the quest to get this citizens rights under the law. One citizen's law suit' against the city/state and development powers that be. While most took the cash and ran. Some moved in, so as to get extra funds, before they ran. But this citizen wasn't so interested in the money as help finding comparable, replacement housing. One tenth of their job description, under the relocation laws of the state. Went up through the agency, then the city and then the county agencies that pertained. Each time asked if they gave more money, would the citizen leave them alone and leave the area. But this citizen wanted comparable living space, home/work/studio replaced and in the general area. Each time going to the public law library, to learn enough to file all the necessary papers on time, to stay off eviction until a place could be found. Learned the applicable law, filed on time every step of the way, so that the citizen's process was legal while looking for a lawyer. All of the time being beat on with the law, by the city/state agency, to stop the citizen from accessing his rights. At every contact denied access and due process. All the time going further up the ladder to the state level and then to the federal representatives in Congress. And do you want to know what they all said, to go back to the agency that I was suing for not doing their job and they would not only be the ones to fix it, but would be the ones under the laws to discipline themselves for not doing their job. To make a long story shorter, had the case fully documented that they had broken the law, on their own letterhead and handed it to my lawyer. My lawyer was more interested in political points than money, sold out to the city and was payed by them. I never did get my day in court. The state bar association said he may of been fraudulent, but that was all, so they wouldn't discipline him. The NAACP wouldn't help because the citizen wasn't a minority. Asked the police why they were going to evict when there was a legal stay in place and was told by them that the city just wants to, so we will. While the citizen was forcibly, illegally, evicted, lost everything twice, lived in a van homeless for 4 years. Beat on by the local law daily. Was stopped by the police 4 to 6 times a day, for 4 years and harassed. Had everything in the van dumped on the side of the road, so they could thoroughly search for illegal things, more than a few times. Denied access and due process through dozens of government agencies. Denied or broke multiple constitutional rights all along the way, again and again. So your writing about our system and how it is this and that, state of perfection, got to be preserved as it is, because it works so well for everyone! I can honestly say that it only exists for those with deep pockets, on paper, in theory and in the minds of those that don't want to believe that these ideals have already been gutted. They no longer exist for all - within practice. So this was my experience and education in moral values, taught and perpetuated by our fine system, under the law and the Constitution of the U.S.- as practiced in this country, at this time in history. |
#36 |
You need to login or register to post comments.
Discuss this item on the forums. (2 posts)
Who's Online
- neonnerfajosy
- [Bot]
Now online:
- 1 member
- 1 guest
- one robot