Free AI web copilot to create summaries, insights and extended knowledge, download it at here

Abstract

se one or the other. I can choose to remain critical of police culture, without losing my humanity.If I was to put the question back to them I would ask, would you come to the aid of a drag queen or transsexual in need? What about a woman in a Burka or a man in robes and a turban? Are you the Good Samaritan? Or the righteous Priest, too important to stop?The whole question of asking who our neighbor is was the impetus for the parable of the Samaritan that Jesus told. Samaritans were despised by the Jews of their time. Whatever group you hate the most, that’s the equivalent. The deadbeat, loser, unemployed drug addict. That guy.But the Good Samaritan helps the stranger, for no good reason, and at great personal cost when all the righteous and powerful have failed to do so. That was the lesson. Who is our neighbor? The least among us.“But wait, you don’t mean the creepy guy who smells funny, do you?” we ask.“Yes, that one.” He answers.“Ugh. Is there maybe a different option? One where I have to perform a series of complicated rituals while wearing a really specific outfit?”“No. Just love the weirdo — and yourself.”“Hmmm. Is there someone else I could speak to? Some sort of manager perhaps?”“Dad? There’s someone who wants to speak to you. They claim they know you.”We are living in dangerous times, where we have become split into factions driven by tribal loyalty and purity tests for inclusion. It’s not who you love that matters, but who you hate. It’s not what you do, but what you say.The irony of Christianity for me is that it started as this really complicated way to organize a culture into civil society. Lots of rules and laws. Then according to their own teaching, the Messiah, the literal son of God, comes to earth to teach a different way of thinking and they kill him. But it was all part of the plan, we learn because now we don’t have to do all that other crazy shit from before. Now we just have to love God and each other. It’s super simple. Too simple it turns out.So of course we proceeded to re-complicate it again because that’s how we like it. It doesn’t make any sense to us that we would get anything for free. We have no interest in charity, even when it’s from God. We are intent on earning our own righteousness, to be our own gods. How can we possibly win if everyone has access to the same?After all, is said and done, it comes down to basic kindness. The golden rule. This isn’t by any means exclusive to any single religion, culture, or race. It’s a universal (if we can use that term) concept of live and let live.But we’re not solitary creatures. We are social beings. We survive on the strength of the collective. We are interdependent, and therefore we have rules, unwritten or not, about what is acceptable and what is not. The consequences for not abiding by those rules have traditionally meant banishment, which in many cases was akin to an eventual, if not early, death. It was severe. Social responsibility was a powerful force. But so was equity. It had to work for everyone.In a society, the force of authority, whether it’s a political, religious, or economic system, must meet the needs of the community if it is to survive and grow. When the hive ceases to function as a collective, it collapses and dies. This means that our own self-interest must be tied to the interests of the group, which in turn means that it’s in our best interest to care for our neighbor. Simply for self-preservation, if not moral obligation.Our current society is so massive and complex that we have yet to reach a critical point where the hive is in danger of collapsing. But

Options

it’s not out of the question, or possibly even that far into the future.If our morality is not based on caring for the least of these, then what purpose does our social structure serve? If it’s merely to serve the needs of an elite few, then eventually unrest will predictably follow.Political parties offer up ideology to appeal to common values in the electorate. They’re often competing for values that appeal to different groups but presumably achieve the result of well-being, comfort, and tranquility.So I find it strange that those who identify as Republicans, who pursue self-reliance, self-gratification, and wealth, would also identify as Christians who teach a catechism of dependence, community care, and austerity.Because liberal Democrats have championed LGBT rights, reproductive rights, the value of a secular government, and the notion that government should serve the needs of the people, modern Republicans have decided that anything the Democrats want, is inherently evil. If some are bad, all of it must be bad.This has led to the wholesale abandonment of most of Christian theology, in favor of an odd hybrid of Ayn Rand secularism mixed with medieval moralism. It’s both as well as neither.I’m not just picking on Republicans, because I don’t think most Democrats would suggest that love be the driving force behind the government, but they’re a lot closer to that position than the GOP is.If we’re being honest, or even just slightly self-aware, we have to admit that capitalism isn’t terribly conducive to any sort of moral, philosophical foundation that claims to value human kindness and the protection of the common good. Every man for himself is not compatible with doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.Democracy itself is replete with opportunities for corruption and oppression. It’s why the founders of this country tried so hard to develop a system with checks and balances that would curb the worst of our natural inclinations.It didn’t turn out to be enough, maybe because when they said all men are created equally, they didn’t feel as if they needed to clarify that they meant rich, white men only. There may have been a few blind spots and oversights in their 18th-century world view of the gentleman farmer and scholar reliant on slave labor. It should not be shocking that we’ve had to adjust things to fit the times.It’s dangerous to believe that a document written 230 years ago is infallible just as we might not want to base everything on a collection of stories and letters collected just 400 years ago at the behest of a king. We might want to consider some updates to our thinking from time to time, based on our current understanding of things, even if we believe that there were timeless ideas being proposed.Do unto others seems like a pretty basic idea that we can all continue to embrace. Personal freedom only extends to the point it begins to affect others. Tolerance is important for peace and tranquility. Rules and laws help maintain order. Greed, violence, theft, and dishonesty are all aspects of human nature that need to be curbed. In a large, complex society, we need a strong government that can oversee our many needs. We are no longer a few families living alone on the prairies. But even then, there existed communities, with laws and order and social norms.If a turtle inadvertently finds itself on its back, it will die. Another turtle seeing this will attempt to flip it back over. It will go out of its way to save its life. Why? Because it knows, or at least hopes, that the turtle in distress would do the same for them.Are we not as least as moral as a turtle?</article></body>

MORALITY

The Morality of Turtles

We’re living in dangerous times where it’s not who you love that matters, but who you hate.

I saw two things this morning as I was rage-scrolling through Facebook. One was a passive-aggressive post from a local pastor extolling the virtues of his own congregation by reminding them that life wasn’t about prosperity or human rights, but solely about the glory of God. The other was a stupid meme that posed the ridiculous question, “Would you come to the aid of a police officer in need? Share if you would.”

My response to both lead me to think about the central premise of society, which was suggested to me recently as nothing more than the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Love your neighbor as yourself.

In the first case, I agree with the pastor, that preaching a prosperity gospel misses the core values of Christianity. But his blind spot for Jesus’ message of love and tolerance is held in stark relief due to the political manipulation of the religious right.

Progressive Christians are seen as a danger to the status quo of conservative theology because it undermines the foundational belief of earning your way to heaven by adhering to strict a moral code. That this is a distortion of the plain teachings of the Bible. If we let the sinners in, the homos and the trannies, the addicts and the sluts, what’s the point of having a church at all?

The pastor wrote that he believed we are called to be holy, but seems to miss the part where all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. We cannot simply be holy, as if this is a matter of choice. Be sober, as your father in heaven is sober, to paraphrase. Just say no. Sin no more. Lust not after that Ford F-350.

By grace are we saved and not of ourselves. Lest any man should boast. It was supposed to be a gift from God, this supernatural grace. The ultimate gift in fact. This was the good news you hear spoken about. The debt was paid and we are free from the bondage of sin.

But alas, it was too good to be true. They turned it into a purity test; a threshold for entry into a private club. The Pharisees of the day celebrated their own righteousness, their own glory, and Jesus condemned them for it. The Jews had always been told to keep themselves separate. Paul railed against using the exclusion of circumcision as a defining marker. Jesus told his disciples, in a message of radical idealism, that the world would recognize his followers, not by such trivialities, but by their simple love for one another.

I believe you can still find followers of Jesus throughout the world today. They probably don’t even think of themselves that way. Individuals who are self-evident in their love for their neighbor. But very few of them are to be found behind the confines of the church walls.

The walls themselves were built to keep people out. Hell has gates to keep people in, but heaven was supposed to be an open door. Instead, the church has become a gated community, guarding against invasion, and so also against inclusion.

The meme showing what is presumed to be a fallen officer of the law is a different story, but also the same. This is a common logical fallacy meant to use emotion to make us choose between two unrelated options.

Will you choose to support the police unconditionally, combined with a call for a minimum of human decency, to come to the aid of someone in physical distress. The fallacious argument is that you must choose one or the other. I can choose to remain critical of police culture, without losing my humanity.

If I was to put the question back to them I would ask, would you come to the aid of a drag queen or transsexual in need? What about a woman in a Burka or a man in robes and a turban? Are you the Good Samaritan? Or the righteous Priest, too important to stop?

The whole question of asking who our neighbor is was the impetus for the parable of the Samaritan that Jesus told. Samaritans were despised by the Jews of their time. Whatever group you hate the most, that’s the equivalent. The deadbeat, loser, unemployed drug addict. That guy.

But the Good Samaritan helps the stranger, for no good reason, and at great personal cost when all the righteous and powerful have failed to do so. That was the lesson. Who is our neighbor? The least among us.

“But wait, you don’t mean the creepy guy who smells funny, do you?” we ask.

“Yes, that one.” He answers.

“Ugh. Is there maybe a different option? One where I have to perform a series of complicated rituals while wearing a really specific outfit?”

“No. Just love the weirdo — and yourself.”

“Hmmm. Is there someone else I could speak to? Some sort of manager perhaps?”

“Dad? There’s someone who wants to speak to you. They claim they know you.”

We are living in dangerous times, where we have become split into factions driven by tribal loyalty and purity tests for inclusion. It’s not who you love that matters, but who you hate. It’s not what you do, but what you say.

The irony of Christianity for me is that it started as this really complicated way to organize a culture into civil society. Lots of rules and laws. Then according to their own teaching, the Messiah, the literal son of God, comes to earth to teach a different way of thinking and they kill him. But it was all part of the plan, we learn because now we don’t have to do all that other crazy shit from before. Now we just have to love God and each other. It’s super simple. Too simple it turns out.

So of course we proceeded to re-complicate it again because that’s how we like it. It doesn’t make any sense to us that we would get anything for free. We have no interest in charity, even when it’s from God. We are intent on earning our own righteousness, to be our own gods. How can we possibly win if everyone has access to the same?

After all, is said and done, it comes down to basic kindness. The golden rule. This isn’t by any means exclusive to any single religion, culture, or race. It’s a universal (if we can use that term) concept of live and let live.

But we’re not solitary creatures. We are social beings. We survive on the strength of the collective. We are interdependent, and therefore we have rules, unwritten or not, about what is acceptable and what is not. The consequences for not abiding by those rules have traditionally meant banishment, which in many cases was akin to an eventual, if not early, death. It was severe. Social responsibility was a powerful force. But so was equity. It had to work for everyone.

In a society, the force of authority, whether it’s a political, religious, or economic system, must meet the needs of the community if it is to survive and grow. When the hive ceases to function as a collective, it collapses and dies. This means that our own self-interest must be tied to the interests of the group, which in turn means that it’s in our best interest to care for our neighbor. Simply for self-preservation, if not moral obligation.

Our current society is so massive and complex that we have yet to reach a critical point where the hive is in danger of collapsing. But it’s not out of the question, or possibly even that far into the future.

If our morality is not based on caring for the least of these, then what purpose does our social structure serve? If it’s merely to serve the needs of an elite few, then eventually unrest will predictably follow.

Political parties offer up ideology to appeal to common values in the electorate. They’re often competing for values that appeal to different groups but presumably achieve the result of well-being, comfort, and tranquility.

So I find it strange that those who identify as Republicans, who pursue self-reliance, self-gratification, and wealth, would also identify as Christians who teach a catechism of dependence, community care, and austerity.

Because liberal Democrats have championed LGBT rights, reproductive rights, the value of a secular government, and the notion that government should serve the needs of the people, modern Republicans have decided that anything the Democrats want, is inherently evil. If some are bad, all of it must be bad.

This has led to the wholesale abandonment of most of Christian theology, in favor of an odd hybrid of Ayn Rand secularism mixed with medieval moralism. It’s both as well as neither.

I’m not just picking on Republicans, because I don’t think most Democrats would suggest that love be the driving force behind the government, but they’re a lot closer to that position than the GOP is.

If we’re being honest, or even just slightly self-aware, we have to admit that capitalism isn’t terribly conducive to any sort of moral, philosophical foundation that claims to value human kindness and the protection of the common good. Every man for himself is not compatible with doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Democracy itself is replete with opportunities for corruption and oppression. It’s why the founders of this country tried so hard to develop a system with checks and balances that would curb the worst of our natural inclinations.

It didn’t turn out to be enough, maybe because when they said all men are created equally, they didn’t feel as if they needed to clarify that they meant rich, white men only. There may have been a few blind spots and oversights in their 18th-century world view of the gentleman farmer and scholar reliant on slave labor. It should not be shocking that we’ve had to adjust things to fit the times.

It’s dangerous to believe that a document written 230 years ago is infallible just as we might not want to base everything on a collection of stories and letters collected just 400 years ago at the behest of a king. We might want to consider some updates to our thinking from time to time, based on our current understanding of things, even if we believe that there were timeless ideas being proposed.

Do unto others seems like a pretty basic idea that we can all continue to embrace. Personal freedom only extends to the point it begins to affect others. Tolerance is important for peace and tranquility. Rules and laws help maintain order. Greed, violence, theft, and dishonesty are all aspects of human nature that need to be curbed. In a large, complex society, we need a strong government that can oversee our many needs. We are no longer a few families living alone on the prairies. But even then, there existed communities, with laws and order and social norms.

If a turtle inadvertently finds itself on its back, it will die. Another turtle seeing this will attempt to flip it back over. It will go out of its way to save its life. Why? Because it knows, or at least hopes, that the turtle in distress would do the same for them.

Are we not as least as moral as a turtle?