Isn't it interesting how "sins" change? In the '40's, it was a "sin" for able-bodied men not to join the military. As a nation we believed it was right, noble, good to fight to defend our country and other countries, even if it cost us lives and comfort. Today it's a "bad thing", reserved for losers shortchanged by the system. In the '60's it was racism. We needed to treat all people equally. That changed in the '70's to treating certain groups with favoritism ... you know ... to make up for previous conditions. In the first half of the 20th century it was a "sin" to engage in sex outside of marriage and a "sin" to get a divorce. These, of course, have shifted from "sin" to "norm." "Sins" change, at least in the national view.
Here in the 21st century things continue to change. It's a "sin" to be boring. It's acceptable to have religious beliefs, but a "sin" to have them in public or even to allow them to shape your worldview. Well, if it's Christianity, I suppose. Some religions seem to get a pass from most people. And when did it become a sin to make money? It seems a universal belief (well, almost universal) that "rich people are evil" and it is mandatory that they be stripped of what they have. They must be penalized! Take what they have and give it to the rest! People used to aspire to be rich. Now we have politicians promising to take as much as they can from rich corporations (you know ... the ones that employ a lot of people) and rich folks (you know ... the ones that have worked hard to get where they are at) and give it to the rest of us ... the ones who work for the corporations and haven't managed to get rich on our own. That is offered as a selling point for a campaign, a promise without apology, a "good" thing.
Sometimes I don't think I'm following things at all ...
No comments:
Post a Comment