Monday, December 23, 2013

The Dilemma Of Absolute Permissiveness

In the midst of this fight for #equality, (which is perfectly due), we seem to missing out on a few important details - according to the premise of this post, the most important one. The moral one. Whether we defend a moral, a moral, part-moral or semi-moral stance, we all must admit to a form of morality. A consistent form of a set of rules which we consider sacred - however we'd like to define that. Even if we don't connote a religious, social or socio-religious form to it, we still have a framework that's, in some sense, sacred for practical and logical reasons, if not any other. One that we may circle around when in a moral dilemma but never change the centre of.

Morality (all kinds) is something we inherit, which makes our identity. The same factor when overdriven, as opposed to naturally ingrained in upbringing, causes rebellion against it. Society is built for stability. We are influenced, and influence so as a result - opposite its values (in rebellion) or otherwise.

When we don't do this (ignore the moral question), we promote, or enter into, a state of absolute permissiveness. It's like being on drugs. The opposition to any opposition to it, imposing or non-imposing, is control. The real big issue is not whose right it is and whose right it isn't to deny anyone any privilege they'll like to have. If we all clamour for the rights without understanding the ecosystem created by the values we profess, we're down a road headed for destruction. The world is not to be squeezed so that we can be happy, each one of us individually. We need to be happy together in a system built for that, and that involves squeezing for space - all of us.

While governments makes laws for, or against, homosexuals (some against their very existence as people), the homosexuals and activists for them start to claim litmus test status for it. If you are for them, you're alright. If you're not for them, you're old, archaic and not even listenable to. You have to buy their point of view without the bat of the eye lid, and then you're in their good book. Almost like virtual daylight bribery with the cops watching, it's like militia-ising a new part-morality and dump-imposing it on everyone like it's the dawn of a new order of something.

Now, I am for equality. No man or woman is less of a person and they need to be treated equally like one, all inclusive. I also have the compulsion of the moral dilemma we're in.  We can't be absolutely permissive, for reasons mentioned in the first paragraph. We have to ensure our freedoms and also recognise our boundaries - principle over all else. None of those conditions include militia-ising a new part-morality and dump-imposing it on everyone like it's the dawn of a new order of something. 2) A man must be free to do as he pleases, well, because we all, as human beings, understand the value of that freedom. We all universally recognize it and affirm it. 2) We all certainly do not recognise the we-must-all-get-into-the-heads-of-the-people-don't-agree-with-us-and-brainwash-them outlook. It is contradictory to the first one we all universally recognise.

The moment we hit a logjam between these two, we need to sit across a table and sort out this moralistic (as defined in the first paragraph) issue. We have to discuss what some perceive as an attack on the values of a free society as opposed to what others perceive as an equal attack but in the opposite direction. When we come to the table, we come ready, at least making the effort. We can't put default acceptance as a condition. The very reason we'd meet so is because don't default accept each other, to that little, certain extent. It negates the need of such a exercise and makes it a sham. Tolerance is a two way street when you're dealing with any form of moralism. There are no over-the-top privileges.

When we voice opinions, however radically opposite, we must make sure 1) is maintained, as long as no one's stepping on anybody else's feet. I am a Christian. The Bible tells me that homosexuality is wrong, plain and clear. I believe that, and it is my full right to. And my beliefs also extend to my life. It comes into play when I blog about it like this, tweet about it, tell someone what I think of this issue and in similar situations. No one may like me for it but rule 1) doesn't mandate that everyone must. If someone has a problem with that, we must go to that table again and reframe these moralities we follow till we can find something which is equally just and fair for all. Imposing is certainly not an option, or we agree to disagree.

Moreover, having a discussion across the table between different degrees of religious beliefs (from complete to none) does not allow a/quasi/semi/non-religious people to gain any sort of a rational advantage and root out religion and keep out religion on those grounds. If the apparent disagreement is rational, and is so because religion becomes automatically sidelined, the discussion has no value. Religion is a factor, like any other, and must be equally respected. That totally breaks 1) and causes 2).

A perfect example is the relationship I have with Christmas. I don't like Christmas. I find it most culturally blind celebration we celebrate for obvious reasons. I actually run mini non-Christmas Christmas campaigns to shine some real light into the world whilst they celebrate. But, at the same time, I know that many Christians who do celebrate it are not the people that a mindless celebration makes them, if we simply added up everything that's done during Christmas which is apparently all about the truth of Jesus Christ. Yet, in conversation during the 'season', I also ask a lot of them who do about "their Christmas" and what their plans are for it because I know that they do celebrate like that wholeheartedly. I'm opposed to the idea but I'm opposed to their stand on it. So, I don't discriminate in my behaviour with them while holding my stand.