Your Rights and My Nose

Rights. As a colleague said quite often, "Your rights stop where my nose begins."

My unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not take precedent over your rights, nor yours over mine.

Each citizen has the right to choose the sources and data upon which he or she bases his or her understanding of truth, whether it be scientific or medical, or supermarket tabloid, or something in between.

All citizens, in theory, have the right; indeed, the responsibility to vote in public elections, thereby giving voice and support to their respective positions.

Every citizen enjoys the right to assent or dissent in response to governmental action. Some do so based on socio/political ideology, while others stand on ethical principles. The former often place their ideology above human needs, while the latter stump for more humanitarian, idealistic results. The former see idealism as impractical and useless.

These are not hard dichotomies, but rather a continuum whose statistical curve peaks somewhere near the middle. As one moves toward either extreme the protagonists become more rigid and intractable, their intolerance of differences more belligerent.

The foregoing is neither new nor particularly keen insight. It’s sociology or political science 101.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is an American sceintist. Since 1996, he has been the Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the Rose Center for Earth and Space in New York. He says there are three levels of truth:

(1) scientific truths or “objective truths” or beliefs that one can substantiate through objectivity, impartial science, facts, and reasoning.  

(2) political truths are inaccuracies repeated so often they become recognized and accepted as true. Examples of political truths include the belief that Thomas Edison invented the lightbulb, or that Christopher Columbus discovered America.  

(3) personal truths are perspectives that fail the test of scientific reasoning. He argues that individuals cling to these beliefs, even when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  One example of a personal truth is the belief that the earth is flat.

I do not present Tyson’s categories as in any sense final; indeed, I take issue at more than one point. I present them here as representations of a new relativism related to truth. I respect his categories as perceptions and/or applications of truth; but not of truth, itself. If one believes, as I do, in absolute truth, there are no relative truths or levels of truth.

As I have said and written many times (and am far from unique in this perspective), while I believe in absolute truth, I do not believe in the human capacity to comprehend truth absolutely. The best we can do is point to a “preponderance of evidence.” And always—ALWAYS—we are compelled by the limitations of the clay of which we are made to acknowledge our perception of truth as partial.

As a theologian, in making this point I almost always quote St. Paul’s dictum in I Corinthians 13:12 “For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.” (NRSV) As you may have noticed, it is adapted into my blogsite name, “Flawed Glass.”

Given, then, that human perception of truth at best is vulnerable to distortion, I return to my opening focus, which is the perceptions and applications related to our rights as American citizens. The two topics, though divergent, are related, and the issue at hand is where we get the data upon which we base our respective positions.

Never in human history has more data be more readily available to more people. This presents us with a humongous dilemma because the data closely parallels the aforementioned ideological continuum. Compounding the dilemma is a growing tendency toward confirmation bias in far too many efforts to research available data.

If one looks long enough, and knows the ideological biases of enough sources, one eventually can find someone with a degree or a title who will validate virtually any thought or idea one has. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I am grounded in the scientific method, and I accept the findings of those who apply the scientific method.

For my entire life up to now I have accepted mainstream medical community's counsel (including the value of vaccinations—think "smallpox" and "polio"), and I have enjoyed good health and excellent health care. I especially give credence to their informed findings in contrast to sources outside the medical mainstream or the biased opinions of non-medical sources; therefore, I am concerned about the risks of opening up our culture too soon vis-à-vis the COVID-19 pandemic.

I have the right to determine my own risks and to gamble with my own health and safety, and maybe even with that of my household. But my rights stop where your nose begins, and neither I nor you have the reciprocal right to gamble with each other’s health and safety.

I hope I'm proven wrong, and that the COVID-19 pandemic is a tempest in a teacup and hasn't been much of a real threat to anything except to our economy. The preponderance of evidence from mainstream medical and scientific community doesn’t support that hope; therefore, until proven otherwise I choose to stay in my home, and to wear a mask when I venture out; and I will have difficulty not resenting those who discount the seriousness of the virus and are willing to trust their biased opinions and gamble with their own safety and the safety of others (including me and my family).

And, BTW, I also don't have a problem with the government stepping in and setting boundaries when the preponderance of observable evidence suggests too many people are not smart enough to be trusted to protect themselves or to not gamble with others' safety.

That’s the way it looks through the “Flawed Glass” that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

Rules vs. Trust

Rules and laws are inversely proportional to trust: more rules indicate less trust, while a greater level of trust is indicated by a relative absence of rules. 

Rules and laws usually come about in reaction to a hurtful interaction within a group, or to prevent its happening (again). Our United States Constitution was intended to prevent replication of the monarchial tyranny the colonists fled and against which they rebelled. The Constitution essentially limits government by establishing boundaries beyond which it may not go; but within which it is free to act.

Two ideologies clashed at the Constitution Convention. Situational revisions aside, those two groups continue today. They were born in animosity and that animosity has increased. It’s amazing that the Constitution got finished![1]

One group bore an unqualified distrust of government, but trusted individuals to be responsible and ethical in their dealings. They stumped for minimal central government, preferring to give more power to state and local governing bodies. That perspective is extended into today’s conservative political system.

The other group distrusted the integrity of individuals, especially in regard to unregulated commerce and banking. They advocated a stronger central governmental regulation against the threat of economic oligarchy . Today’s liberal principles emerged from that foundation.

Both ideologies remain virtually absolute, with neither crediting anything good to the other. Few, if any, voices call for acknowledging any good in both, and there is an ominous absence of any effort to find common ground on which to build consensus on anything. No political balance or trust is to be found.

Rules and laws are meant to restrict the influence of whatever entity is mistrusted. The power pendulum swings from left to right, and back. Endless partisan adjustments to and rescinding of laws, and the institution of more laws are meant to shackle the mistrusted “other party.” The result today is a convoluted system of laws, many of them self-contradictory, which transcends most human comprehension.

But, lack of comprehension does not discourage the hostile debates that indicate a gross decrease in trust and a consequent need for power and control.

In a pioneering study in group dynamics, Jack Gibb and others named four primary concerns for evaluating the level of trust within a group’s culture. The concerns determine the level of trust formation,[2] regardless of the group’s size. The following graph offers a visual guide to understanding the aforementioned concerns:

Primary Concern	Derivative Concern	Symptoms of Unresolved Concern	Symptoms of Resolved Concern
Acceptance	Membership	Fear/Distrust/exclusion	Acceptance/Trust
Information Flow	Decision-making	Politeness/caution/ Strategy (often secretive or behind-the-back)	Spontaneity/feedback
Goal Formation	Productivity	Apathy/Competition (silencing innovation)	Enthusiasm/Creative work
Control	Organization	Dependency/ Counterdependency that challenges for leadership	Interdependence/role distribution

In my opinion the dynamics in the column labeled “Symptoms of Unresolved Concern” is a portentous description of our beloved United States of America.

So, what is the source of the mistrust, and how do we overcome it?

I suggest the mistrust is a product of hurtful experiences in our past. As a child I was pulled off my bicycle and chewed on by a big dog and, to this day I grow anxious when a big dog approaches me. I’ve learned compensatory behaviors to defuse any threat; but the mistrust is still present—until a relationship is built.

If building a relationship is key to overcoming mistrust, some concerns must be considered. Trust, by definition involves risk. So does love, which I believe should be the ultimate goal and intention of all human interaction.

Trust and love require—indeed, they are defined by—vulnerability. There is risk of betrayal and rejection. The alternative is to insulate oneself from betrayal and grief, but the payoff is fear and distrust. So I repeat: trust and love require—indeed, they are defined by—vulnerability.

A second concern in building trust is re-learning the lost art of listening. I’m not sure I could be a good listener had I not had extensive training in counseling and in conflict resolution. Even with the training and years of experience, it doesn’t always come naturally. Often, I have to be intentional about flipping on the “LISTEN” switch. 

Nevertheless, listening is a key requirement for building trust. Evidence is rampant on social media that people don’t really listen—not even when the message is written in clear script. Instead of listening, they are preparing their rebuttal (even though they may not—probably don’t—really know what’s been said). How many times, while reading a Facebook conversation, have you discovered, within relatively few exchanges, the focus has been diverted totally from the original topic.

Someone posts about compassion for the poor, and within two or three responses the conversation is diverted to how liberals are shoving a welfare state down our throats. The diversion kills a conversation that may have led to a charitable proposal acceptable to all concerned. And mistrust, if anything, has increased, along with animosity.

Or a Facebook conversation about illegal immigration is diverted to a condemnation vs. defense of President Trump’s wall. The conversation might—might—have been more productive if the responders had listened and stayed on the subject, which probably was a concern for national security and public safety. If the responders wanted to pontificate against the wall, they would be better advised to start their own conversation. But, then, in all likelihood that conversation would be diverted, too.

How on earth can we build trusting relationships if I don’t really know what you’re saying, and you don’t know what I’m saying? Without that knowledge, we’re left to assumption and opinion, neither of which is trustworthy.

At the infamous bottom line, while there is risk in trusting, there also is risk in listening. If I really hear you, I risk learning something new; indeed, I may hear something that requires me to reconsider previous convictions. 

But, then, that would mean I’d have to admit I am, at least partially, wrong—that my opinions are not absolute. And that may be the greatest risk of all.

That’s the way I see it through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] In many ways, it’s not finished, even yet. As a living document it is adjusted according to ongoing needs.

[2] Leland P. Bradford, Jack R. Gibb, and Kenneth D. Benne, editors, T-Group Theory and Laboratory Method (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964)  

Milestones for the Journey (Through 2015)

The Holidays were active at the Robinson’s this last year. Kids and grandkids came and went from Thanksgiving until after New Year’s Day. We treasured every moment, and welcomed every headlight. But we also rejoiced to see the last tail light drive out of sight. In each case, the last thing we said was, “Drive carefully. Have a safe trip.”

A safe trip is good. I want them to stay between the ditches. It’s winter; the holidays. Safety’s an issue. But my friend and colleague, Arnold Nelson, reminded me one year in his newsletter that life is not always about “playing it safe.” It’s skimpy well-wishing to say, “Have a safe trip,” without including, “Have a great time!” “Enjoy the drive!” Wishing for safety isn’t wishing for very much.

Truthfully, I hope none of us try too hard to have too safe a new year. I hope we can try for more than that. Abundant living is found elsewhere.

Over the years I’ve read a lot of motivational books; and last week I re-read the book of Proverbs. Proverbs is as timely as this morning’s headlines.

There are 31 chapters in Proverbs—just right for reading one chapter a day, at least in seven of the twelve months out of the year. Here’s a challenge for you: read a chapter of Proverbs every day this year. Start today. Read Proverbs 7 today, and each day read the chapter whose number is the same as the day.

From various sources and resources over the years I’ve collected eight milestones from Proverbs that can guide our journey into abundant living in 2015.

First: Travel Light (12:25). An anxious heart weighs a man down, but a kind word cheers him up. Excess baggage slows you down. Don’t pack failures, disappointments, worries and resentments from the past. Stop opening old sores and bad memories. Decide to forgive. Travel light.

Second: have a plan, but live one day at a time (6:6-11). Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise! It has no commander, no overseer or ruler, yet it stores its provisions in summer and gathers its food at harvest. How long will you lie there, you sluggard? When will you get up from your sleep? A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest—and poverty will come on you like a bandit and scarcity like an armed man.

On this journey into the unknown we likely will encounter the unexpected. Have a plan and live responsibly, but ready to improvise on the fly. Be accountable, but welcome every serendipity.

Third: Be Generous (3:27-28). Do not withhold good from those who deserve it, when it is in your power to act.  Do not say to your neighbor, "Come back later; I'll give it tomorrow"-- when you now have it with you. A world reeling with greed, intolerance, bitterness, prejudice, hunger, disease, and cold needs every drop of simple goodness in our veins.

Fourth: Face Your Problems with Faith and Courage, Rather Than Avoiding, Resenting or Fearing Them (4:25-26). “Let your eyes look straight ahead, fix your gaze directly before you.  Make level paths for your feet and take only ways that are firm.” Remember: because we are children of God, we are family. We don’t have to bear our burdens or work alone.

Fifth: If You Can’t Change Your Circumstance, Change Your Attitude (15:16-17).  Better a little with the fear of the LORD than great wealth with turmoil.  Better a meal of vegetables where there is love than a fattened calf with hatred. Sometimes we may feel we could do better with life if we could start over, somewhere else. Rather than a new environment, what we need is a new inner life. The Serenity Prayer of Alcoholics Anonymous is helpful here: “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”

Sixth: the Secret of Relaxation Is Essential To Health (17:1). “Better a dry crust with peace and quiet than a house full of feasting, with strife.” Stress endangers both mental and physical health. Inner quietness is a vital pathway to abundant living. Resources are abundant. A good place to start is the website, renovare.org.

Seventh: Trust God (3:5). Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding… TRUST. There’s always risk in trusting: a risk of being let down, being disappointed, betrayed. Trust is risky; not safe. Trust anyway.

And Eighth: “Go For It! Go for The Abundant Life” Even If It Involves Some Risks (14:4). “Where there are no oxen, the manger is clean; but from the strength of an ox comes an abundant harvest.”  I remember a poster with a picture of a beautiful tall sailing ship in rough seas, under full sail. The caption said, “A ship in harbor is safe; but that’s not what a ship is for.”

Don’t adopt the philosophy of life that says, “You can’t fall out of bed if you sleep on the floor.” I don’t advocate reckless or irresponsible risk-taking; but always playing it safe will take the “abundant” out of “Abundant life”

Safe is good; but it’s far shy of joyous or blessed or merry!

Attributed variously to at least three different writers, there’s a quote I like so much that I’ve put it in my Facebook profile: “Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside thoroughly used up, totally worn out and loudly proclaiming, ‘Wow! What a ride!’”

That’s how I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim