The Golden Rule

[ehowton]

Compassion isn't a political agenda item. Peace and conservationism aren't Leftist ideas, yet modern-day pundits decry it as a Socialist movement - something which threatens to tear the fabric of Democracy from our fingertips. Mention "giving" or "helping" or "recycling" and young Conservatives immediately close their minds to the liberal propaganda which is sure to follow, when in fact its these very ideas - peace, love, giving - that all people, regardless of political alignment, strive for and promote every single day. Conservatives tend to just not want it legislated. That's different than not giving.

Compassion is not a political weapon to be wielded. Its not to be denied, nor assigned to any group of people. Its a universal label, to be applied freely by all. Where then lies the stigma?

The problem isn't necessarily the Right and Left Wing talk show hosts equally stewing feverishly in their spun tales - for anyone with any level of maturity will soon come to realize neither camp is ever completely honest. In fact the very basis of that hosts existence, no matter which side they're on, is to accuse the other side of doing it wrong. My conservative friends don't listen to Olbermann, and my liberal friends don't listen to Rush. Unless its to get inflamed about something - because its the perfect environment for that; An emotional powderkeg. They don't listen to their respective personalities out of anything more than confirmation. Justification for their thoughts and actions.

No, the problem (as always) is people. People who are too busy lining up to be labeled to listen to what's being said. I am by no means advocating "vote for the person instead of the party" rather, I'm asking everyone to just take a step back from politics for a moment and consider the harm its doing to our opinions of one another by way of these labels, and the part you're playing through the propagation of this myth - the myth that your politics or religions are making this world a better place.

If you really wanted to make the world a better place, you'd lay down your political party and your religion and you would follow the ethic of reciprocity: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I don't follow this advice more than when I'm behind the wheel of my car. I treat everyone how I wish I were treated, and my short commute is filled with the happy thoughts of a nation of drivers who aren't rude, careless, ignorant, angry, or stupid. Hands down its one of the more difficult things I do during the course of my day because it hurts my soul that most people simply don't care.

These same people, they've labeled themselves and call themselves by any number of names: Republican, Christian, Democrat, atheist, liberal, conservative...and they all pride themselves on being more open-minded than those who disagree with them. How wonderfully flawed.

Truly living by treating others as you yourself would like to be treated would culminate in a whole host of other little problems given our diverse nature, but it would be a damn fine start to a better world.

All of them, better worlds.

Comments

[schpydurx.livejournal.com]

Just like we shouldn't profile Muslim men aged 17-35 when boarding planes. After all, 67 year-old Betty Smith or 3 year-old Julie Jones could be the next jihadist. YOu never know.

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

Your ability to dismiss multifaceted complexity and break things down into simplistic elements is a refreshing gift.

My 10-year old sees things similarly.

[schpydurx.livejournal.com]

You're the one trying to get the whole world to join hands for a round of kumbaya. That's overly simplistic and utopian at best. Come live in the real world: yannow, the one where someone states their position on a topic, a person responds to that topic and then the person who made their assertion first responds back with thought-out answers to response instead of ignoring the response all together and dismissing it as though the person who originally stated their position is an elitist snob that has to look down upon the dumber, lesser person when in fact, there is only one truth.

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

That "one truth" is as multi-faceted as the perspectives of those who view it. There's only "one bible" yet 1000 denominations. How can it be?

Here's a brain teaser - if there is only one truth...why all the controversy?

Shalom.

You're right about this post being overly simplistic, but it was you sir who missed its point :(

[michelle1963.livejournal.com]

Are we talking illegal immigration or terrorism? Granted there are places where the two may overlap, but there are many places where they do not.

Your tangent does not address my point.

[schpydurx.livejournal.com]

Both.

Your claim is that it is Nazism to ask "Hispanics" (which is a racist term) for their driver's license and registration because it is profiling; therefore, you must agree with the TSA's policy of molesting 75 year old grandmothers and 3 year old children because they too might be a jihadist and blow up a plane. After all, profiling at the airport would be Nazism per your definition.

My point (not tangent as you smugly put it) does address your claim of Nazism. What you fail to explain the Constitutionality of driver's licenses, tag registration (taxes) and the TSA.

[michelle1963.livejournal.com]

I'm not trying to explain the constitutionality of the driver's licenses etc. That's your gripe; not mine.

TSA screens for terrorists. In our recent history the majority of terrorists have been of Arab ethnicity. Does that make all Arabs terrorists? No. Should we screen only Arabs? No. Whether we like it or not, occasionally someone who does not fit the current terrorist profile is in fact a terrorist. Anyone remember Timothy McVeigh? Yes, it seems ludicrous to screen 3 year olds and 75 year old grandmas, but in Vietnam these types of people were sometimes used as guerrilla fighters simply because our soldiers would be less likely to suspect them. TSA can't simply say we're going to screen only Arabs, because there is a chance, however slim, that someone who doesn't "look" like a terrorist may in fact be one.

Now as to how this relates to the immigration law in AZ, TSA treats every traveler to the same screening procedure. The AZ law does not do this. It pinpoints only those who appear to be Hispanic. (And I take issue with your point that this is a racist term when in fact it is a proper description of ethnicity, just like Caucasian and African American.) This is discrimination. That is my gripe.

[schpydurx.livejournal.com]

Now as to how this relates to the immigration law in AZ, TSA treats every traveler to the same screening procedure. The AZ law does not do this. It pinpoints only those who appear to be Hispanic.
Please cite the section and line numbers where SB 1070 specifically targets Latin Americans.

[michelle1963.livejournal.com]

The law itself may not pinpoint Latin Americans. However, do you really believe law enforcement is going to run the IDs of blonde haired blue eyed people looking for Swedish people who are in America illegally? In all cases there is the law, and then there is the application of the law.