This Sacred Cow cartoon courtesy of www.sacredcowsonline.com A Modest Proposal September 13 , 2006 Freedom! The movie Braveheart starring Mel Gibson is about a 13 th century Scottish rebel, William Wallace, who unsuccessfully led a rebellion to free Scotland from the rule of the English. At the end of the movie, Wallace is brutally tortured in an effort to force him to swear allegiance to the English king, Edward I. Given one last chance to “repent” his rebellion before his head is lopped off, he simply cries out one word, “Freedom!” just before the ax falls. I remember this scene vividly, partly because of Wallace’s gruesome demise but mostly because of the impact of his last word. Could I have done what he did and then endured his terrible punishment all in the name of freedom? Living in the USA, I have never had my freedom challenged to that degree so I can’t really say for sure. I can say that I have a low pain threshold and I have never believed that strongly in anything. So what does freedom mean to me? In the Modest Proposal entitled Awakened? (July 2006) I wrote this about freedom:
I began writing this Modest Proposal on September 11, 2006, the fifth anniversary of the attacks on New York and Washington; the same attacks that prompted me to write an article that became the first Modest Proposal. Now I’m not joining the journalistic frenzy commemorating the fifth anniversary… it’s somewhat by accident that I’m beginning this essay on this particular day, yet it’s also relevant. I realize now that freedom, like so many other concepts, is a two-sided coin. The two sides are contrasts to each other and thus help define the other. It’s a kind of balancing act. Freedom is balanced by safety. Another way of looking at this is that the safer I am the more freedom I give up. Freedom creates risk. Safety is about reducing risk. Freedom and safety are the two sides of a scale. I think that in my day-to-day life, mundane as it might be, there’s a continual tradeoff between playing it safe and taking risks. Do I drive without my seatbelt on or not? Do I say what I feel like saying to someone or keep my mouth shut except to mumble some socially acceptable platitude? Do I order some strange, unknown dish in an ethnic restaurant or do I get a salad? Every one of us makes these kinds of choices many times each day. Until I began writing this piece, I didn’t understand that these choices involved freedom and risk. There is another thing about these two opposites: freedom involves my taking a risk about learning new ideas and concepts. Safety is about my staying with the accepted and well worn catch phrases that have become automatic responses to common, set situations. “Oh look, there’s a swarthy looking guy wearing a turban – he must be a Muslim, probably a terrorist!” “There’s another guy wearing a biker, leather jacket with some emblem on the back – he must be a thug and gang member!” The list is long. These are my safe responses and both loudly say “Stay away – this is someone dangerous!” Often I don’t even know the origin of my judgments that supposedly keep me safe. In the 2004 Bush-Kerry presidential campaign, I had a conversation with some friends in which one of them said of John Kerry when asked what she thought of the two candidates, “People just don’t like him.” When asked to expand on that statement, she simply repeated the same sentence; she had not a clue as to why people didn’t like him. Her assessment of Kerry was not rooted in the issues or how the campaign was being conducted; it simply reflected something that she heard or read, and then took as the “truth” as vague as it was. Of course, her judgment was mainly based in the fact that he was of the “wrong party” but she was not going to admit that that was the main reason that “people just don’t like him.” More on that later. My fears cause me to make judgments designed to control my fears and thereby keep me safe. If I say, “The [Republican or Democratic] Party is ruining America,” then my fear stems from the possibility that the USA is going to collapse because of that party’s actions or lack thereof. I judge that party as being irresponsible and leading the country into ruin and thus elevate the other party as the salvation of the country. Once I make this judgment and decide which is the safe option, my freedom to continually evaluate and choose the best course of action (my vote and voice) in the moment disappears. This matter of my fear limiting me to that which is seemingly safe is so very apparent at this time in the USA, and probably many other countries as well stemming from the 9/11/01 attacks. US citizens gave up many rights and liberties as a result of the attacks, and yet, surrendering them has not “guaranteed” their safety as the government repeatedly reminds us. So, the net effect is that freedom is diminished and safety is not assured. What was gained and was it worth the loss of freedoms? This is a question for each person to ask of himself. Over 200 years ago Benjamin Franklin answered that question from his perspective: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Exercising freedom always involves risk , for the outcome of having freedom is never guaranteed , while safety is all about guaranteed outcomes. Again, I suggest that the two need to balance one another while also taking other people into consideration. To this latter point, I remember from grade school the definition of freedom which was something like: Freedom is the right to do whatever you want to do unless that interferes with someone else’s freedom. I know that I want to be safe much of the time. I want to get on an airplane and be reasonably assured that it will do its thing and get me safely to my destination without an engine falling off or a terrorist blowing it up. I cannot, however, be absolutely guaranteed that neither of those catastrophes will not occur. I cannot control the situation so my fears have to be accepted or I don’t fly. There are a lot of people who don’t fly. I think that , just like making the choice to fly or not, we all go through the freedom versus safety choice throughout our day. I know that most of my choices, whatever they may be, are pretty petty. Do I fudge a bit on the speed limit when driving and risk getting a ticket or do I stay under the speed limit and hopefully ensure that I don’t get one? There are, as Mr. Franklin infers, choices in the domain of freedom or safety that are larger in consequence like “essential liberty.” So, if I am going to expend my little gray cells on having awareness of freedom versus safety choices, I think that I want to make them about the bigger issues. I think that there is one really big question that all spiritually aware (should I say awakened?) people could expend some thought on (OK, maybe a lot of thought) while considering this issue. How can the most freedom be afforded to the most people in the world? Wait a minute! How can I ask this question when I already said that freedom is an individual matter of choice? How can I afford freedom to others; don’t they have to create their own freedom? It’s easier to motivate people to do something than to make them do something. Consider the parent who tells the small child, “You’re not leaving the table until you eat your peas,” versus, “Try the peas, you may like them.” I still maintain that freedom is what you give yourself, and I equally maintain that we have a lot to do with the boundaries of other peoples’ freedom. The problem comes in when, in order to exercise my freedom, I encroach on someone else’s freedom. When they protest, I retaliate. “How dare they resent my exercise of freedom even if it inconveniences them? I’m only doing what I want.” This approach kind of violates that grade school principle of doing what you want as long as it doesn’t interfere with someone else’s freedom. There’s still another principle involved, and it’s one of my favorite questions to ask myself and others: What are you really about in your life? The question is rooted in my former life of being a manager and corporate trainer when I asked, “What business are you really in?” It’s one that most people don’t consciously understand, for it requires some awareness and thought. I didn’t realize what business I was in or what I was really about in my life for a long, long time. What am I really about in my life? I’ll answer that question but first with a warning: the answer that I give is what I aspire to be about; it’s not a proclamation of having arrived. In fact, I’m not sure that I’ll ever get there – it’s another one of those risk things! Who I desire to be in the balance of my life is someone Some days I’m better at this than others; nonetheless, it’s a goal that is never far from my consciousness. I do know that I can only accomplish it by being free. I can only accomplish it by trying to motivate people to do something for them selves that they truly desire to do. If , in order for me/my country/my church/my “whatever” to be free, some other person/country/church/whatever has to give up freedom, do you see something unhealthy about this equation? We are not really seeking freedom but safety disguised as freedom. The original Modest Proposal from post 9/11/01 was about taking a deep breath after the horrible attacks and looking for solutions to the problems that spawned the attacks other than making war. I was not aware then about the balance of freedom and safety. Five years later I still believe that the original premise was not only an exercise in freedom but was also in the long term, best interest of the world. My Modest Proposal to you is to examine what freedoms you are willing to exchange for the illusion of safety and its limitations. May you discern with compassion…
“An Inconvenient Truth” I included this plug in the last Modest Proposal, and I feel that this topic is so vitally important to all of us regardless of country, religion, or race that I'm including it again. I am once more highly recommending the movie, and if you don't want to watch the movie, read the book, or do something that educates you about the alarming damage that we are doing to the Earth and to everything that lives on it, over it, and under it which just happens to include us human beans! This is a movie, a documentary that “stars” Al Gore, the guy who won the popular vote for President in 2000 but lost the electoral vote to George W. Bush. This movie is not about the election – it is a conscientious, intelligent, and provocative presentation of the effects of global warming on the Earth. It’s not a political statement – it’s an ecological statement that affects all human beings, present and future. The movie opened in July, 2006 to a wide release in the US and has been viewed by millions of people. I highly recommend it. For more information, please visit An Inconvenient Truth or copy and paste this URL: http://clicks.aweber.com/z/ct/?sHjTL45sBrnNzb1RR1ccfw
This newsletter had its beginnings with my work on the online magazine PlanetLightworker.com. I am grateful for the support of the magazine's staff especially Editor Sandra Sedgbeer. Visit the site for an eclectic mix of spiritually oriented articles, features, and art with a brand new edition published at the first of every month. PlanetLightworker Modest Proposal text: Copyright 2006 Ron McCray Contact Ron at ron@turtlewheel.com Visit Ron's website, The Turtle Wheel at www.turtlewheel.com To subscribe to the Modest Proposals newsletter click SUBSCRIBE.. The Modest Proposals newsletter supports spam free emailing and requires email validation that you wish to subscribe. If you choose to subscribe, you will be sent an email that you must reply to in order to complete the subscription. Ron cannot complete the subscription for you once it is started. Your email address will not be sold, given, bartered, or traded with any other party. You may unsubscribe at any time by following the link provided in each newsletter. If you have questions, please contact Ron: ron@turtlewheel.com . Thanks...
The Sacred Cow cartoon at the top of the page is courtesy of:
|
