 |
| AP Photo / Bill Haber |
Today, my sister shared the most recent Duck Dynasty scandal on Facebook, and my attempt to comment on it grew well beyond a reasonable length for the medium. Ultimately, I decided instead to share it here:
Sidestepping the obvious logical fallacy that morality is a purely religious construct (and consequently a matter of obedience instead of any real dichotomy between right and wrong)...
I see this, and my first thought is that this man's claim to fame is essentially playing a caricature of a backwards, backwoods hillbilly, not representing a voice of reason. As I said when there was a similarly misguided quote by some member of Duck Dynasty about homosexuality (possibly the same person for as much as I pay attention), reversing the popular axiom: If it's a duck, then we shouldn't be surprised if it looks like one and quacks like one.
Yet, earlier today I briefly overheard as a coworker was listening to some sort of talk radio, as the pundit gave his opinions on a news story. The verbal attacks the pundit made against various individuals and organizations sadly came as no surprise. I didn't even have enough context in the brief listening period to determine if there were any blame to be had by anyone involved, and therein had no basis for judging his claims. What bothered me was not the obvious logical fallacies that plague so much of talk radio. No, what bothered me was the hate.
It bothered me how unreserved the hate was. It bothered me that this voice didn't simply feel compelled to hate, or assume the right to hate. It bothered me that, instead, this person seemed to believe that it were his duty to hate. It bothered me that this person not only hated without hesitation or apology, but that this person believed that such hate was the only possible response. It bothered me that this pundit expressed that it was the only possible response for not just one misguided voice on the radio, but anyone, and that we, the listeners, were obviously full of hate as well. And it bothered me that this was a voice that people look to for information — if not guidance.
This went beyond simple eye-for-an-eye mentality. This was not a matter of justice, or simply punishing misdeeds. People were utterly dehumanized. Harm was wished upon them for its own sake. And somehow the point was missed that what went wrong in this incident and all the incidents leading up to it was primarily the very same dehumanization, villainization, and stirring of conflict and division in humanity.
By now you have likely noticed that I haven't discussed details of the story, partly because my exposure to the topic was limited, but moreover I chose to deliberately avoid the generalizations that allow for such dehumanization to take place. Whether it was a man or woman, liberal or conservative, atheist or Christian, or youth or elder matters nothing. Too many times I have seen articles denouncing intolerance and bigotry against a group only to turn the very same against the group that perpetrated the injustice. Just because some Christians fail to love their enemies doesn't mean we should attack all Christians, and just because some of those who turn against theism also turn against morality doesn't mean all do.
The problems in the world are not a particular subset of villainous folk. The problems in the world all come from the lines we draw in the sand. We may not see ourselves as villains, but the moment we choose to point a finger or shake a fist instead of offering a hand, we add to these problems. The moment we separate ourselves — whether as individuals or a group — from others, we become part of the problem. We may not harm people, and we may not even wish harm, but unless we prevent harm, then it is a matter of culpability and not morality. There is a difference between pacifism and passivism.
We blame the problems on others, failing to see our own faults, and then wait for someone else to fix everything. (Why should we fix it? It's not our fault.) We let others fend for themselves, sacrificing the potential they could in turn offer us if we just helped them, even a little. We let economic disparities grow exponentially and unsustainably. We let social inequalities persist that should have been dismissed generations ago. We watch as the world is destroyed for profit. And the moment you protest that you are are not responsible for the economic disparity, or the multitudes of inequalities, or the environmental catastrophes, or any other of the crimes perpetrated by humanity, you become part of the problem, not so much because you have separated yourself from the problem, but because you have separated others from yourself, and we can never hope to offer a solution while putting those who need the most guidance on the defensive.
We are each members of humanity, and only humanity can solve humanity's problems. It is when humanity struggles against itself — when we struggle against others, whether through action or inaction — that problems arise. As I have said before, progress will only be made by having others walk with us, not stand against us.
