The current state of affairs in our country these days is largely outrage over injustice. Even the NBA has become a platform for "social justice reform." And no one in their right mind would (or should) say, "I'm opposed to justice!!!" So ... clearly we should all be on board with this, right?
Maybe.
You see, like in so many other cases these days, we're all calling for the same thing -- "marriage equality," or "love," or "equal rights," or, in this case, "justice" -- while the terms turn to mush under our feet. We all favor justice, perhaps, but what do we mean by the term? Scripture says that God is just. What does it mean by the term? You see? If we're all in favor of justice and Christians believe that God is just, then we must be saying that God is in favor of the Black Lives Matter movement, right? Right? And suddenly definitions, again, become important.
Justice, in its most basic form, is the quality of being right. In the Bible, they use "just" and "righteous" -- justice and righteousness -- as synonyms. In English, justice can be defined as "moral rightness." Other aspects include "administering deserved punishment or reward," "equitableness," or "fairness."
So, what's the problem? Well, if "justice" is "that which is right," who gets to determine what is right? In our nation we've rejected God as the one who determines right and we've substituted the loudest, most outraged voices. It is mandatory in our society today that you agree that "whatever we say is right is right" if you are going to be classified as loving "justice." In other views justice is about personal freedom or about fairness, but in our current crisis it's entirely about power. Who has it? "We don't, and we should!" Based on what? Who gets to decide? On what basis? It is entirely subjective -- no foundation, no objective reality, no conformity to a solid core. I'm not saying we disagree, necessarily; we just don't know how we got here when we do.
For instance, "justice" for the Black Lives Matter movement (I differentiate between the principle that black lives do indeed matter and the BLM movement -- the two are not the same thing.) is the dissolution of the police, the disruption of the nuclear family, and a Marxist form of government. "No justice, no peace!" Wait ... is that the "justice" we're crying for? "We embody and practice justice, liberation, and peace," they say on their website, which sounds strange in the ears of those watching the riots on TV and wonder how burning cars and buildings qualifies as any of those three things.
Here's the basic problem of justice, then. Justice is "rightness." We have discarded any objective "rightness" and are now substituting whatever we currently feel is "right" and then demanding that everyone concurs. Having properly and completely dismantled "justice," we can now use it as a baseball bat to club people over the head with because they don't agree with our version of "justice" even though it's only our version. This is a real problem, a solution for which doesn't exist in our world untethered from any solid reality. Of course, I believe there is solid reality and I believe there is objective truth and objective morality -- objective "rightness." But the rest of our culture is stuck in an untenable position and is angry about those who disagree.
27 comments:
Much like young children, we live in a world where justice, fairness, and what's right all seem to magically line up with what's best for the person or group advocating.
Yet, is justice served when the guy who brutally attacked a Macy's employee, lied about it and is getting probation? Is justice served by destroying a Ronald McDonald house? By destroying the life and livelihood of small business owners?
Justice, as advocated by too many, is a joke.
Yes, the problem with today's "justice" is that IT IS UNFAIR. It is not equality. No one is aiming for equal treatment. They are aiming to elevate their treatment at the cost of others.
I remember a short sci-fi story I read some time ago about a society based on "equality." The primary characters were a husband who was a brilliant engineer and a wife who was a gifted dancer. The government installed a device in his brain that made it hurt when he thought too deeply and hobbled her so she couldn't dance because that way neither of them were better than anyone else. In real life, France banned homework because some kids had good parents who helped them achieve more while others did not. That gave the kids with good parents an "unfair advantage."
Today's justice is anything but.
I got the details wrong. It's a Kurt Vonnegut story entitled Harrison Bergeron. The concept I described, however, was accurate.
One of the things that intrigues me with the current school situation is this notion of education pods. That a group of parents could hire a teacher who would "home school" a small group of children. This sounds like a win for everyone. The kids win because hey get a better qualified teacher and a small class size. The teacher wins because they get a small class size. likely more money, motivated kids and supportive parents. The parents win because they get a professional to teach their kids. Yet, the fairness folx want to enforce fairness be forbidding all of the parties involved from engaging in an arrangement that is mutually beneficial.
It's a little like The Trees from Rush, in that equality is achieved by forcefully lowering some to the level of others.
Or Animal Farm's "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
I've been fascinated by this online education thing. There are loud voices out there that have historically opposed home schooling. One primary concern has always been "no socialization." We have now mandated "no socialization" (literally) and I'm seeing all sorts of advertisements for "Use our free online service for your kids' education." When did "no socialization" become a good thing rather than a bad one? When they said so?
I've always been ambivalent regarding socialization as a primary goal of the education system. It's always seemed like it's a byproduct rather than a goal. Although, if socialization is a good thing, then the pods concept should further that goal.
At this point, I don't think anyone is saying that no socialization is a good thing, as much as they are saying that it's one more thing to be sacrificed on the alter of Covid. If sacrificing socialization helps further the appropriate narrative, then it'll get sacrificed.
I do think this raises questions about the value of the current way we do education (or at least the notion that it's sacred), and of the notion that professionals are the only ones capable of educating our children. I think this is more true of elementary ages than secondary. But the fact that school districts are speaking out against hiring tutors and against the pod concept seems to suggest that they might not be open to looking at what's best for the children to the extent that they portray themselves.
No, certainly no one is saying, "No socialization is a good thing." They are sacrificing a good thing consciously. As you said, they're sacrificing socialization for something more important -- safety. At the same time, though, these online schools have been available for a long time. In my state they're even tuition free. And they have never included socialization. And no one has complained about them. I suspect they complained about homeschooling primarily because it was religious people that favored it and wanted to avoid having a leftist public school system indoctrinate their children in beliefs the parents decried. So if they can get your kids to take their online schooling, they have succeeded in indoctrinating your kids ... because it never was about socialization. And it's still a double standard -- "You need to socialize your kids ... unless, of course, it's under circumstances that we approve." I think the desire to indoctrinate our kids is the reason they would oppose the pod system as well.
I also think many parents are against online courses because then they are required to be there. They are required to be responsible for their kids' education. Who wants to be responsible for their own children? They send them to school to teach them, sure, but also to get them away from themselves. But that just might be the cynical view I have of many parents today, given several comics I've seen when summer vacation started depicting parents whooping with joy to not be dealing with educating their kids anymore.
I'm sure there are several reasons parents would be against it. "I don't feel qualified." "I don't have the time." "I don't want to be responsible for their education." And more, I'm sure. But why they would feel the need to object to other parents who don't have those same objections is confusing. Most people have a great deal of respect for those rare parents who really want to be responsible for their kids, even those who don't want to themselves.
(Side note. I saw a minivan with a note written on the window. "Dear teacher, YOU LIED! My Johnny is NOT a real joy to have in class. I know, now!")
I’d suggest that they haven’t sacrificed socialization for safety as much as for a combination of the illusion of safety and an agenda.
I’m sure that there are multiple reasons why parents aren’t comfortable or interested in home schooling their children. Those reasons run a spectrum. But, it seems like these are the people who would be most interested in the pod concept and most willing to go that route.
Regarding my three kids, they're smarter than their parents, so homeschooling might have been detrimental for them. They'd be teaching us.
I know some that have schooled their own kids at home because of the state of our culture...to have their kids educated without the immorality. They still socialize through other means, such as organized sports and such, as well as just playing with their friends in the neighborhood.
But for those who don't feel capable of teaching their kids at home, they can still be influential in those moral and social areas, and that's the important thing.
What's most problematic now, is the covid situation and how it has forced kids to be without the freedom to socialize and learn those aspects only experience can teach, and by that they are harmed. I don't know that homeschool parents WANT to have their kids at home as opposed to school, but do so out of necessity for the above mentioned dangers. If the culture...and the public schools...weren't so corrupted, few would homeschool.
Just as an aside, because it came to mind, I saw a great meme on Facebook entitled "Branch Covidians" and had a masked, robed figure kneeling before a computer screen upon which directives were listed. I just had to share. "Branch Covidians". That killed me.
Is it the Christian thing to do to mock those that we don't agree with?
David, I seem to have missed the connection. Whom are you asking?
Marshal and his "Branch Covidians" quip.
Apparently, being Christian means rejecting one's sense of humor. Get over yourself, David.
Marshal, is that a "Yes, David, the Christian thing to do is to mock those we don't agree with"? (He wasn't asking about humor.) I was going to tell a joke about COVID-19 here, but apparently it's likely that 98% won't get it.
I love puns. They are probably my favorite form of humor. And in that, I understand your joke. But I believe it is wrong to make a joke that is derogatory toward someone else. It is not an act of love to mock someone. As Christians, we are to be marked by our love. Is it your belief that mocking others is showing Christian love?
I've got bad news for you guys: it would be difficult to find humor that is not the result of mocking someone...that doesn't point to an imperfection in order to provoke laughs. There's a difference between mocking something like an infirmity as opposed to mocking an idiotic position. Mockery in the latter case helps to focus view upon the idiocy as well as to entertain. Once again, get over yourself.
Then you must be the one with a narrow sense of humor, since I find a lot of things and jokes funny that don't require mockery. As Christians, shouldn't we be distinctive from the world around us? Should unkind words be found on our lips, for what goes into the mouth doesn't corrupt, but that which comes out...
"Then you must be the one with a narrow sense of humor, since I find a lot of things and jokes funny that don't require mockery."
I'd love to hear such a joke. Give me an example and I'll show you how it mocks.
Stan gave one in one in this very post. "I was going to post a Covid19 joke, but 98% of people won't get it."
Just Thinking podcast does an excellent job addressing the concept of justice in their recent BLM episode. It’s pretty long, but worth the investment in time.
David,
"Stan gave one in one in this very post."
...which mocks the 98%. Thanks for the help.
That explains a lot. You didn't get it. The joke is that 98% won't get COVID-19. No people were mocked. (And didn't you say, "If you have to explain a joke ..."?)
Got me there, Stanley, my good man! Not much of a joke though. Wouldn't get you a second gig at the Laugh Factory. Is it yours, or did you borrow it from someone else? Maybe it's worded wrong. I was going to tell a joke about COVID-19 here, but apparently it's likely that 98% won't get it. Puts too much emphasis on "tell a joke" so that it's easy to miss the connection between the stat and the disease.
But to your question, I don't think mockery is denied the Christian as whatever tool is available to correct others...even at the risk of their feelings being hurt...is acceptable depending upon when and how it is done. People flee from mockery and the result is usually...at the very least...reflection on that which is mocked. If it's a belief or a behavior, mockery may result in the victim seeing their belief or behavior in a different way that more civil attempts at correction may have failed to find success. Thus, the victim's paradigm is shifted an that behavior or belief can no longer be considered acceptable to the victim.
But just rippin' on somebody? No. Not Christian.
No, it's not mine. It's an Internet meme. And it's popular because most people got it.
Peter wrote, "Honor everyone." (1 Peter 2:17) He said that we should be ready to "make a defense" for the hope that lies within us, "but with gentleness and respect." (1 Peter 3:15). You're a better man than I because I cannot figure out how mocking others qualifies as "honor," "gentleness," or "respect." Limited thinking on my part.
Post a Comment