Right Versus Right
This morning I was listening to yet another discussion of the right which is asserted by some of we humans to have complete freedom of speech even if the speech we utter is designed to (1) make someone or some group feel bad or insulted or (2) prove a point with no other obvious outcome.
I think that the second motive is perhaps the most common although there may also be a hint of the first reason as well.
It seems as if many of us agree that it is not okay to make fun of a child by calling him or her hurtful names although even then there is some disagreement. It is also not okay to falsely accuse someone of something. There are laws, which allow one to collect damages in that case.
For many years and still in some places it is okay for non African American to call African Americans the N words. Most people, however, will not condone that or agree that is okay. Within the African American community the words take on a different meaning. One could argue the rightness or wrongness of this. I do not intend to do so. Since I am identified as predominantly Caucasian the only motivation I can think of for using that word would be to be hurtful.
One of the examples in recent history is the assertion of some satirical cartoonist and others to depict the face of the Prophet Muhammad, which is not allowed by Islamism. I found the following succinct explanation of the reason for this on the Quora website:
“The reason that creating depictions of Prophet Muhammad are often known to be such a great sin in Islam is because according to the faith, the Prophet was a human being and held no divinity whatsoever. The fear that one may glorify the depicted image is why — and it therefore may be considered shirk (a term used to describe the worship of anything but God) which is haram (forbidden in Islam). The fear may not seem that prevailing, but when compared to other religions (Christianity for example), the prophets are sometimes glorified more than God himself.
It is important to note that in the history of Islam, many beautiful depictions of the prophet were made. The depictions did not expose the face of the Prophet, however, so as to not be in threat of idolatry or worship to other than God. The majority of these treasures were from beautiful Persian miniatures.”
If, in fact, one knows that depicting the face of the Prophet is very insulting and upsetting to many other people why would one insist on a right to do so. The reason given is the right of free speech. That seems to me to beg the question or the issue. That argument does not register with me any more that the assertion by one of the class bullies when I was young that it was okay for bigger or stronger people to verbally insult or name call others just because they could and no one else was big enough to stop them. Fortunately, in that situation, school administrators and staff have, in recent years, taken a strong stance. There is now a similar issue with respect to the “right” of some to call others names or make fun of them on social media sites.
I need to interject another statement here. I do not, in any way, condone the use of violence against the bully or against the person asserting their freedom of speech to do say or depict something or someone they know is going to offend another person or a group of people. As I have previously stated, if I want to change the bully my goal needs to be to show them that (1) one does not have to respond to violence (verbal or physical) with violence and (2) they do not have to prove their worth by bullying. We know that the bully is one who has learned that they have to prove their worth or have to prove that they deserve respect. Whether this need stems from a personal belief that they are less them or whether they have a need for others to affirm their worth, I do not have to add to their perception that others think that they are less then.
Some would assert that many extremists are just looking for an excuse to be violent – to earn their way into paradise by becoming martyrs for the religious cause. That may be true of some extremists whether those extremists are claiming the authority of a Christian belief, a Muslim belief, a Jewish belief or some other belief. It is thought by some that the United States has been very cruel and extreme in its intention to force democracy on some other nations.
It seems to be that we humans often go to battle to force our way of thinking on others. We convince ourselves that our way of thinking is the ‘right” way or the “Godly” way or the sane way or is, in some way, is the only superior way. Therefore, in the name of our cause we go to battle. We may think that our way of thinking is very enlightened, but as soon as we find ourselves willing to hurt others in the cause of “rightness” I think we have put ourselves into a reactionary position, which makes us no different than the ones we are hoping to change.
While I personally have my own set of beliefs for what I think today is the “right” way for me to behave, this does that give me the right to kill many of those in your group so that the remaining ones have to adopt my way of thinking? There is something about that argument which seems very strange.
As I age, I am increasingly accepting of the fact that I cannot change others nor do I need to try to change others. It is not my “job” to prove to you the rightness of my beliefs. It is my job, as I see it, to work towards consistently behaving in a way, which demonstrates how to treat others and myself with love and respect.
Now I am well aware that no matter how I behave the bullies of the world are not necessarily going to become what I consider to be spiritually enlightened. As a professional counselor as well as a person just living his life, I have not been successful in convincing everyone I counsel or everyone I teach to give up their hurtful behavior and become the model flower child that devotes every waking moment to spreading love and kindness! No. When I picked up the newspaper this morning I did not find any announcement that the new prophet, Jimmy Pickett, had convinced everyone in the world to treat others with loving-kindness. I did find some very moving stories of kindness. I also found stories of murder, war, theft, carelessness, and rape.
I have had to accept that I do not need to prove that I am right. I do not even have to prove this to myself. I merely have to open my arms, heart and mind to a new day willing to embrace new possibilities. I will leave it to others to prove that their way is the right way. Obviously, I am going to continue to raise questions and to openly and publicly explore other ways of thinking. Otherwise I would not be writing this blog.
No matter what my intentions I am going to hurt the feelings of others and I am going to have my feelings hurt by others. It is my intention, however, to practice thinking before I speak or act and practice not taking it personally when my feelings get hurt even when it seems that it was the intention of the other to hurt me. Sometimes I will be able to do this and often I may fail. This too is a process for me.
This morning I was listening to yet another discussion of the right which is asserted by some of we humans to have complete freedom of speech even if the speech we utter is designed to (1) make someone or some group feel bad or insulted or (2) prove a point with no other obvious outcome.
I think that the second motive is perhaps the most common although there may also be a hint of the first reason as well.
It seems as if many of us agree that it is not okay to make fun of a child by calling him or her hurtful names although even then there is some disagreement. It is also not okay to falsely accuse someone of something. There are laws, which allow one to collect damages in that case.
For many years and still in some places it is okay for non African American to call African Americans the N words. Most people, however, will not condone that or agree that is okay. Within the African American community the words take on a different meaning. One could argue the rightness or wrongness of this. I do not intend to do so. Since I am identified as predominantly Caucasian the only motivation I can think of for using that word would be to be hurtful.
One of the examples in recent history is the assertion of some satirical cartoonist and others to depict the face of the Prophet Muhammad, which is not allowed by Islamism. I found the following succinct explanation of the reason for this on the Quora website:
“The reason that creating depictions of Prophet Muhammad are often known to be such a great sin in Islam is because according to the faith, the Prophet was a human being and held no divinity whatsoever. The fear that one may glorify the depicted image is why — and it therefore may be considered shirk (a term used to describe the worship of anything but God) which is haram (forbidden in Islam). The fear may not seem that prevailing, but when compared to other religions (Christianity for example), the prophets are sometimes glorified more than God himself.
It is important to note that in the history of Islam, many beautiful depictions of the prophet were made. The depictions did not expose the face of the Prophet, however, so as to not be in threat of idolatry or worship to other than God. The majority of these treasures were from beautiful Persian miniatures.”
If, in fact, one knows that depicting the face of the Prophet is very insulting and upsetting to many other people why would one insist on a right to do so. The reason given is the right of free speech. That seems to me to beg the question or the issue. That argument does not register with me any more that the assertion by one of the class bullies when I was young that it was okay for bigger or stronger people to verbally insult or name call others just because they could and no one else was big enough to stop them. Fortunately, in that situation, school administrators and staff have, in recent years, taken a strong stance. There is now a similar issue with respect to the “right” of some to call others names or make fun of them on social media sites.
I need to interject another statement here. I do not, in any way, condone the use of violence against the bully or against the person asserting their freedom of speech to do say or depict something or someone they know is going to offend another person or a group of people. As I have previously stated, if I want to change the bully my goal needs to be to show them that (1) one does not have to respond to violence (verbal or physical) with violence and (2) they do not have to prove their worth by bullying. We know that the bully is one who has learned that they have to prove their worth or have to prove that they deserve respect. Whether this need stems from a personal belief that they are less them or whether they have a need for others to affirm their worth, I do not have to add to their perception that others think that they are less then.
Some would assert that many extremists are just looking for an excuse to be violent – to earn their way into paradise by becoming martyrs for the religious cause. That may be true of some extremists whether those extremists are claiming the authority of a Christian belief, a Muslim belief, a Jewish belief or some other belief. It is thought by some that the United States has been very cruel and extreme in its intention to force democracy on some other nations.
It seems to be that we humans often go to battle to force our way of thinking on others. We convince ourselves that our way of thinking is the ‘right” way or the “Godly” way or the sane way or is, in some way, is the only superior way. Therefore, in the name of our cause we go to battle. We may think that our way of thinking is very enlightened, but as soon as we find ourselves willing to hurt others in the cause of “rightness” I think we have put ourselves into a reactionary position, which makes us no different than the ones we are hoping to change.
While I personally have my own set of beliefs for what I think today is the “right” way for me to behave, this does that give me the right to kill many of those in your group so that the remaining ones have to adopt my way of thinking? There is something about that argument which seems very strange.
As I age, I am increasingly accepting of the fact that I cannot change others nor do I need to try to change others. It is not my “job” to prove to you the rightness of my beliefs. It is my job, as I see it, to work towards consistently behaving in a way, which demonstrates how to treat others and myself with love and respect.
Now I am well aware that no matter how I behave the bullies of the world are not necessarily going to become what I consider to be spiritually enlightened. As a professional counselor as well as a person just living his life, I have not been successful in convincing everyone I counsel or everyone I teach to give up their hurtful behavior and become the model flower child that devotes every waking moment to spreading love and kindness! No. When I picked up the newspaper this morning I did not find any announcement that the new prophet, Jimmy Pickett, had convinced everyone in the world to treat others with loving-kindness. I did find some very moving stories of kindness. I also found stories of murder, war, theft, carelessness, and rape.
I have had to accept that I do not need to prove that I am right. I do not even have to prove this to myself. I merely have to open my arms, heart and mind to a new day willing to embrace new possibilities. I will leave it to others to prove that their way is the right way. Obviously, I am going to continue to raise questions and to openly and publicly explore other ways of thinking. Otherwise I would not be writing this blog.
No matter what my intentions I am going to hurt the feelings of others and I am going to have my feelings hurt by others. It is my intention, however, to practice thinking before I speak or act and practice not taking it personally when my feelings get hurt even when it seems that it was the intention of the other to hurt me. Sometimes I will be able to do this and often I may fail. This too is a process for me.
RSS Feed