My friend called me yesterday. She lives in Springfield, Missouri.
"People are so ignorant!" she stormed.
She had just been standing in line at a gas station when the woman in front of her handed the cashier $60 and proceeded to tell her, "I'm going to fill up my gas tank. I have given you $60. When I return, I want the change back." The lady behind the counter, of course, agreed. The woman patronizingly continued, "There is $60 there. I want to make sure you will give me my change. I have been in other gas stations with Pakistanis like you and they don't return your change. I want to make sure you will."
I can only assume that the lady was given her full and complete change down to the penny.
-----------------------------------
I attended my martial arts class that same evening. There is a 9-year old boy who attends. I see him with toenail polish on quite often. I have never asked why. I figure wearing toenail polish is his right. His mom brings him so if something needs to be said, that is her place. Maybe it's his preference; maybe it's a stage he's going through. Either way, it's his right.
During class, however, our instructor--low enough to talk directly to the boy, but loud enough for all to hear--asked him why he had on toenail polish and asked if someone else had put that on him. The instructor proceeded to explain to him that polish is for girls...and then asked him if he knew he was a boy. He continued to lecture the 9-year old for a moment, then turned to some of the other guys in the class and started talking to them about it.
I was proud of the young boy. He didn't seem phased. He nodded, accepted the lecture, and went about practicing his stances and combinations.
After class, some of the guys continued laughing and joking about it. When I expressed my irritation, they pointed out that it is better that he hear it now before he gets beat up on the street for it.
------------------------------
Today I read a commentary about Obama's volunteers shunning the ladies in Muslim attire so as not to associate Obama with something "negative." I read that Obama has entered many different churches and synagogues, but has yet to enter a mosque...presumably so that he doesn't get associated with being Muslim. I don't understand why Obama can't or won't point out that Muslims are a strong part of our country and deserve to be treated that way.
As I lamented over Obama's unwillingness to stand up for these beliefs, a friend pointed out that Barack Obama has to take that stance in order to get elected.
------------------------------
I don't understand. Why is it that the people being rejected are the ones told they need to suck it up and bear with it instead of challenging those who are ridiculing to think differently about people?
In my mind, the people who need to change...the people who need to adjust...are the ones who are ignorant enough to not accept people. Maybe if more of us who take a laxadasical attitude would say something to the perpetrators instead of the victims our world would change.
I know it's a lot to ask of Barack Obama...and I know it may not be the primary role we expect presidents to play...but I would hope that in his run for the presidency that he would be the voice of conscious, the voice of morality. I would hope that he would say, "We, as a country, do not and will not stand for the mis-treatment of people." (I would hope that John McCain would say so as well.)
I have that hope. But the reality is, it shouldn't be and can't be just on top leaders (though I think that they sometimes do set a standard). The rest of us have to take a stand as well. Instead of accepting life as it is and has been, we have to be the voice of change. We have to be bold enough to proclaim that inequality and injustice and discrimination is not fair and not right. Justice takes each of us. We can't wait passively until the change happens because we are the change.
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Sunday, May 21, 2006
What is considered "immoral behavior?"
Our morality meter is broken. The actions that constitute immorality disturb me.
What is truly immoral?
Is it immoral for a mother to protest the Dixie Chicks by picketing outside their concert while holding her two-year old child and commanding him to shout an angry chant directed at the Dixie Chicks or for people to call in death threats (serious enough that the FBI became involved) because one of the Dixie Chicks voiced a negative opinion about the current administration and it's decision to go to war?
Apparently not. Those are not the stories in the news. Instead, it is the Dixie Chicks or people like them who are portrayed in such a negative light for not supporting our country and not supporting our troops...when really what they didn't (and don't) support was the decision to go to war.
Is it immoral for protesters to stand outside an abortion clinic and ridicule everyone who walks in and out of the clinic, yelling insults and derogatory statements and carrying despicable signs of dead fetuses in an attempt to belittle the people who walk in and out of the abortion clinic?
Apparently not. Instead, it's the woman who has gotten pregnant and struggled to figure out if having a child is right for her or the baby. It's her decision to have an abortion that is criticized, despite the fact that perhaps she realized that the father of her child might not be a good role model or that she might not be able to financially or educationally provide what the child needs. Maybe she just realized that she is not mature enough to have a child. Maybe she made a bad decision, but maybe she's trying to keep her bad decision from affecting yet another human being.
Is it immoral for people to camp out every weekend at the border with binoculars and guns to ensure that no one crosses--even if it means shooting or even killing people--to make sure people don't cross and invisible line and come into "our" country?
Or is it immoral for the people who hire the undocumented workers and underpay them (in cash) so that they can make bigger profits to keep for themselves?
Apparently not. Instead, it's the people in Mexico who recognize that they might be able to help their family out of poverty if they take a trip that often means leaving their immediate family behind so they can work at physically demanding and underpaying jobs to support their family.
Is it immoral for big corporations and companies to contract overseas with sweatshop labor that often employ small children and work kids and adults 17-20 hours a day for pennies because they say their profit margin is too small, yet the executives of the company are still making million dollar salaries?
Apparently not. We still buy the products. Wal-mart, Nike, and others are not feeling any pain. There is no outrage over this. Whatever other countries do and however they do or don't pay their employees is none of our business. We simply contract with them. We try to stay out of the way other countries run their business, right? (well...unless it negatively affects us...like Iraq...or Iran)
Is it immoral for a big company like ConAgra to pay a meat grinder $6.40/hour in 1977 and 29 years later, the same man at the same company only makes $13.25/hour? Is it immoral for the same company to pay their former chief executive $45 million during his 8 years at the company give him a $20 million retirement package despite the fact that the company's share prices fell, the company missed earnings targets, and underperformed its peers under his watch? http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F10B15F83A540C7A8CDDAD0894DE404482
Apparently not. Instead, it's the people who ask for livable wages, adequate healthcare, and better schools and education systems for their children who are said to want something for nothing.
Something is wrong with our society when we focus on one type of immorality (mainly the types that affect the poor and people of color) and ignore the other (mainly the types that affect wealthy, white people).
What is truly immoral?
Is it immoral for a mother to protest the Dixie Chicks by picketing outside their concert while holding her two-year old child and commanding him to shout an angry chant directed at the Dixie Chicks or for people to call in death threats (serious enough that the FBI became involved) because one of the Dixie Chicks voiced a negative opinion about the current administration and it's decision to go to war?
Apparently not. Those are not the stories in the news. Instead, it is the Dixie Chicks or people like them who are portrayed in such a negative light for not supporting our country and not supporting our troops...when really what they didn't (and don't) support was the decision to go to war.
Is it immoral for protesters to stand outside an abortion clinic and ridicule everyone who walks in and out of the clinic, yelling insults and derogatory statements and carrying despicable signs of dead fetuses in an attempt to belittle the people who walk in and out of the abortion clinic?
Apparently not. Instead, it's the woman who has gotten pregnant and struggled to figure out if having a child is right for her or the baby. It's her decision to have an abortion that is criticized, despite the fact that perhaps she realized that the father of her child might not be a good role model or that she might not be able to financially or educationally provide what the child needs. Maybe she just realized that she is not mature enough to have a child. Maybe she made a bad decision, but maybe she's trying to keep her bad decision from affecting yet another human being.
Is it immoral for people to camp out every weekend at the border with binoculars and guns to ensure that no one crosses--even if it means shooting or even killing people--to make sure people don't cross and invisible line and come into "our" country?
Or is it immoral for the people who hire the undocumented workers and underpay them (in cash) so that they can make bigger profits to keep for themselves?
Apparently not. Instead, it's the people in Mexico who recognize that they might be able to help their family out of poverty if they take a trip that often means leaving their immediate family behind so they can work at physically demanding and underpaying jobs to support their family.
Is it immoral for big corporations and companies to contract overseas with sweatshop labor that often employ small children and work kids and adults 17-20 hours a day for pennies because they say their profit margin is too small, yet the executives of the company are still making million dollar salaries?
Apparently not. We still buy the products. Wal-mart, Nike, and others are not feeling any pain. There is no outrage over this. Whatever other countries do and however they do or don't pay their employees is none of our business. We simply contract with them. We try to stay out of the way other countries run their business, right? (well...unless it negatively affects us...like Iraq...or Iran)
Is it immoral for a big company like ConAgra to pay a meat grinder $6.40/hour in 1977 and 29 years later, the same man at the same company only makes $13.25/hour? Is it immoral for the same company to pay their former chief executive $45 million during his 8 years at the company give him a $20 million retirement package despite the fact that the company's share prices fell, the company missed earnings targets, and underperformed its peers under his watch? http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F10B15F83A540C7A8CDDAD0894DE404482
Apparently not. Instead, it's the people who ask for livable wages, adequate healthcare, and better schools and education systems for their children who are said to want something for nothing.
Something is wrong with our society when we focus on one type of immorality (mainly the types that affect the poor and people of color) and ignore the other (mainly the types that affect wealthy, white people).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)