Rights - Equality = Privilege
What the formula is simply saying is that any set of rights sought by a group which will not be enjoyed by all in society are not rights, they are privileges that will be enjoyed by only some in society. On the other hand, if marriage was denied to the LGBT community, then heterosexuals would have a privileged status in society over the LGBT community. Of course it has been more than obvious that, unfortunately, heterosexuals have a place of supremacy over the LGBT community throughout our nation's history. However, by seeking to enjoy marriage as heterosexuals enjoy it, then that seeking of opportunity to get married illustrates the seeking of equality with heterosexuals regarding marriage.
On the other hand, when some of my fellow religiously conservative Christians tried to legislate what the Bible says about marriage into the laws of the state, they weren't recognizing the religious views of others and thus were seeking a place of supremacy over others.
However, there is another formula that is more timely in the light of the upcoming protests for more gun control. The formula goes like this:
a bought gov't + a lazy electorate = a deaf gov't
What the above simply says is that a lack of participation by the people in the democratic process where the government is controlled by those with wealth results in a government that can no longer hear its people. However, if the people speak up long and loud enough, the electorate no longer is lazy and government starts to hear what people are saying. This is the formula that must be remembered in the March For Our Lives protests (click here for the website) scheduled for different parts of our nation on March 24.
One march is not going to get the results that many people want. This has been the problem with the Women's March that started on the day after Trump's inauguration. Sure, the march was massive. But it lost all of its momentum because there were no significantly large marches immediately following that march. And this has been the problem with most protests in the 21st century. Sure we are some times able to create a march with significant numbers. But such marches are too far and too few between for them to have an effect. One march alone does not change the status of a lazy electorate into a participating electorate.
Here, the anti-war and Civil Rights protests of the 1960s should be regarded as the models for how to protest for better gun control. The protests, though having started small, grew in size and numbers. The protests were many and constant. The protesters were persistent in getting their points across. It showed an involved electorate and that resulted in government reluctantly responding to the people.
Momentum is currently on the side of the high school kids from Parkland, Florida. They have started a conversation with our government. And some others are taking their side. Then there is the march on March 24. But these kids should from their experience at Florida's capital where a mere debate on gun control was voted down and replaced with a debate on pornography. They should not be surprised if their march produces no favorable reaction form our government. Thus, they should be planning on what to do after their March 24th protests.
One other point should be made. If these kids want people from other groups to join them in their cause, they must be willing to return the favor. And means that they must admit that it wasn't until a tragic event happened to them that they started taking action. For we need to realize that minority students, their age, have been suffering from gun violence for a long time and their tragedies were not enough to move the kids from Parkland into action. So they need to realize that they have been guilty of a similar apathy that they see in the government officials they are currently challenging. Such a perspective could help fine tune the tone of their protests so that it becomes as effectively loud, without becoming shrill, as possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment