Maya Pinions

The Science of Adulthood

mayakaath — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:50:40 -0700

As I often seem to do these days, I have once again started a blog series, then found cause to interrupt it for a moment of introspection that only tangentially relates to science and religion. But in the spirit of inclusiveness evinced by my one‑time editor at Analog magazine (Stan Schmidt, who retired this past year), I will maintain that psychology and sociology are, too, science! And that what I’m about to say involves both faith and reason.

I want to consider adulthood.

Causes of violence against women examined at UN - Bahá'í World News Service

mayakaath — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 13:18:18 -0700

Causes of violence against women examined at UN - Bahá'í World News Service:

This is an important issue for me as a woman, a mother, a Baha’i. It’s heartening to see it addressed at a global level—but we can have a lot of impact at the local level as well…

There's a Word for That

mayakaath — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 12:54:00 -0700

Here’s the situation: Your child is one of 12 convening in the park for a game. The kids play together regularly and decide by consensus or vote what game to play. Today, they begin discussing their options. After some debate—even arguing—the consensus has it that most of the kids favor a game of baseball.

But three of the kids want to play football. The baseball advocates call for a vote. The footballers say a vote isn’t necessary: they’re playing football and that’s that.

Finally someone says, “There’s an easy way to solve this: how many want to play baseball?” Of the 12 kids, 9 raise their hands.

So, we’re playing baseball, right? Not so fast. The kids who want to play football begin to shout the others down. They threaten to break up the game: “We don’t believe you really want to play baseball at all. You just want to keep us from playing a game we like! So, we won’t let you play!”

When they see that the others really do mean to play baseball, they threaten to use violence to force the other kids to play football.

Now if you were the parent of one of the pro-baseball kids, what would you do?

What if you were the parent of one of the football kids?

In either case, I suspect most of us would go out and uphold the voice of the majority. Hopefully, we would do this calmly, but firmly. We might even remonstrate with the dissenters—there will be other days for football (though not if the football advocates continue in this behavior).

If your kid was one of the threatening minority, you might even discipline your child for threatening to thrash those who disagreed with him.

What I bet most parents wouldn’t do would be to wade in and threaten to help their kids to force the majority to play football.

I suspect we can agree that this behavior would be, in a word, bullying.

So, what would you do in the face of playground bullying? Whichever side of the park your kid fell on, what principles would you invoke?

I’d first invoke principles of faith: The Golden Rule (treating others as you would like to be treated) and Baha’u’llah’s injunction to put the welfare of others before our own among them. Beyond that, I suspect that most parents would raise issues of justice and fairness and perhaps appeal to the idea that violence begets violence and rarely solves problems. We might even invoke the founding fathers of our country and the principles our nation was founded on.

All of the above was a metaphor—I suspect some of you got that from the get go,

Right now an astonishing majority of Americans are in favor of strengthening laws related to gun ownership. (More than can agree that vacations are good for us.) Especially strong are universal and comprehensive background checks (which are polling between 80 and 92% in multiple polls). The least-favored measure is an assault weapons ban and even that polls above 50%. The polls I reviewed included a Fox News poll, which might be expected to show bias toward the gun rights “side”.

Despite this, I hear the voices of dissent insisting that 1) the polls are lying or biased toward gun control (All of them except those sponsored by the NRA and Fox News?) and 2) it’s time to take up arms against those who are afraid of people taking up arms.

Until today, I had thought the idea of enforcing dissent by force was limited to a radicalized citizenry. But now an elected representative, whose duty it is to act on behalf of the people, has suggested that inasmuch as our democratic republican form of representative government (of, by and for the people) is not working as he would like it to, it is appropriate to resort to force. He has therefore issued a call for a “voluntary militia” (renamed the Constitutional Defense Force) that would arise to protect the rights of gun owners. With guns.

His website has a mild enough mission statement: “It is the intent of the Constitutional Defense Force to protect the law abiding Citizens of Maryland from any form of unlawful confiscation of legally owned firearms. Additionally, the Volunteer Militia will train and equip for the following: community security, natural disaster preparedness, and emergency readiness.” (emphasis mine)

It seems to indicate that lawful confiscation would not be fought … which begs the question—who decides what’s lawful in this case? It also begs the question as to who would call up this militia and under what circumstances. Historically, the citizen’s militia was to be called by the President. (See the Militia Act of 1792, for example).

But the mission statement’s mildness is belied by other communications from Mr. Dwyer who views the new gun legislation the Maryland Assembly (or the Asylum, as he calls it on his FB page) as “tyranny.”

“If you live in Maryland, please consider making a commitment to stand against this tyranny by enlisting in the voluntary militia.

“Click here to update your subscription profile and then choose “volunteer militia” from the list selection.

“It is the intent of the Maryland Voluntary Militia to protect the law abiding Citizens of Maryland from any form of confiscation of firearms from April 3, 2013 forward. The Maryland Voluntary Militia members will not participate in any form of insurrection unless forced to do so to by the tyrannical acts of the Legislature, the Governor or the Federal Government upon the Citizens of Maryland.

“You can also visit Volunteer Militia for additional information.

“Thank you for your continued and tireless efforts. Unfortunately,we lost the battle today, but know and trust that an unconstitutional act by the Legislature even if signed into “law” by the Governor, is no law at all. For this reason I need you to continue stand by me as we go forward.

Constitutionally Yours,

Delegate Don Dwyer, Jr.”

This was from a forum called Maryland Shooters. Problem? The tyrannical acts of the Maryland Legislature reflect the majority will of the Citizens of Maryland. So, as Dwyer says, the law is not the law, at all by his personal standard and therefore there is already cause for insurrection.

At what point does this cross over into treason? I honestly don’t know. Nor do I know what’s going on inside Dwyer’s head. But he seems to be calling for an armed insurrection against the Maryland State government, and by extension, the government of the USA—the free State that the second amendment was written to protect.

Meanwhile, Dwyer’s Facebook page, where he began to enlist members for his militia, encourages secrecy born of fear: “Do not post on FB your response to my call for the Militia. Phis (sic) is a public forum and it is monitored. I do NOT want you raided. Please be wise. Email me once the link is up or send an email to me at don@delegatedwyer.com. DO NOT POST HERE. You have been warned!”

Of course, there is no law under which someone would be raided for responding to Mr. Dwyer’s call to arms. But that’s not really the issue.

Unless this is a complete hoax, here is an elected official—someone sworn to protect the rights and stand by the will of the people as expressed through consensus and through the ballot box—promoting the idea that the will of the minority should be pressed upon the majority by threat of force.

I suspect that whatever Mr. Dwyer meant to achieve with this, it may have already gotten out of his control. In following links for this post, I came across a number of folks who are taking Dwyer’s call to arms quite seriously as encouragement to fight—literally, not metaphorically or politically, but violently—to enforce the will of a minority.

There’s a word for that.

Intelligence Squared #2: That Vague Old Notion Called God?

mayakaath — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 15:08:53 -0700

Intelligence Squared #2: That Vague Old Notion Called God?:

This is part two of my “class report” on a recent Common Ground Group homework assignment, specifically, to read the transcript of the Intelligence Squared debate of the proposition that “Science Refutes God”, consider its implications and comment on it. …

Intelligence Squared #1: Krauss’s Motion—Science Refutes God

mayakaath — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 11:16:17 -0800

Intelligence Squared #1: Krauss’s Motion—Science Refutes God:

I begin a series about Flying Spaghetti Monsters, the difference between “disproving” and “refuting” something (apologies to the Oxford language dons), parody, straw men, and double standards.

A century on, legacy of ‘Abdu’l-Baha honored at UK government reception - Bahá'í World News Service

mayakaath — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 10:47:00 -0800

A century on, legacy of ‘Abdu’l-Baha honored at UK government reception - Bahá'í World News Service:

LONDON, 5 December 2012, (BWNS) – Government ministers and members of parliament here welcomed more than 80 Baha’is to a unique event to pay tribute to ‘Abdu’l-Baha, 100 years after His visit to Britain.

It was the first time the British government has hosted a special reception specifically for the Baha’i community.

‘Abdu’l-Baha (1844-1921) was the eldest son of Baha’u’llah and His appointed successor as head of the Baha’i Faith. From 1910-1913, following His release from a lifetime of exile and imprisonment, ‘Abdu’l-Baha made an historic series of journeys to present Baha’u’llah’s teachings to audiences outside of the Middle East. His two visits to the British Isles took place in September 1911, and from December 1912 to January 1913.

The reception was held by the government’s Department for Communities and Local Government on Wednesday 28 November. Welcoming the guests, Secretary of State Eric Pickles MP expressed appreciation for the contribution Baha’is make to UK society. He praised the “little bits of kindness” he had observed among the Baha’is and added, “We wouldn’t tick along quite so well without Baha’is in our community.”

Don Foster MP – who is Minister for Integration – told the gathering that, of all the significant people to come from his home constituency of Bath, he was proud to include Ethel Rosenberg, a founding member of the British Baha’i community.

“You continue to distinguish yourselves in the professions, the arts and particularly in the vital areas of education and conflict resolution,” Mr. Foster told the Baha’is. ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s “important truth” that “we should pursue peace together and differences of race and division between religions must cease is as true today as it was then,” he continued.

Kishan Manocha, speaking on behalf of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of the United Kingdom, thanked Mr. Pickles for hosting the event, describing it as a “tremendous honor and pleasure.”

Writer and actor Annabel Knight – who is a Baha’i – noted that ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s visit was a landmark occasion for the fledgling community which helped the small band of British Baha’is to cement their identity and put service at the heart of their community life.

For the Baha’i World News Service home page, go to:
http://news.bahai.org/

Rules—Golden and Otherwise

mayakaath — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 15:20:57 -0800

I think it was in the cartoon Pogo that I saw what seems to be the Fool’s Gold Rule (that’s what I call it, anyway): “Do unto others and then split”.

I’ve also heard it phrased as “Do unto others before they do unto you.” That’s gotta be the Schist Rule.

Christopher Hitchens, besides opining that the Golden Rule was unrealistic and impracticable, also made the (to me) stunningly disingenuous and non sequitur argument that a sociopath would like it if someone smacked him upside the head, therefore the commandment itself is wrong, bad, and irrational.

I would argue that when it comes to people with deep mood disorders, no rules apply anyway. Rules—whether we’re talking divine injunctions or civil ordinances—are made for the generality of folks who are capable of comprehending and living within those guidelines.

My response to the idea that a mentally disturbed person couldn’t live by this rule so none of us can or should is that if we’re going to apply this logic to the Golden Rule and other divine injunctions, then why not also apply it to the rule that says we shouldn’t treat a crowded movie theater like a shooting gallery, or pop our neighbor’s kids because they don’t look like us. Yet, recent events have shown that some people aren’t capable of living by those guidelines. Using Mr. Hitchens’ logic (which I’ve heard from others as well), we should simply suspend those rules and not even attempt to live by them.

We are funny creatures (when we’re not being tragic ones). We are incredibly more complex than our animal cousins, yet we keep trying to pretend we are not and that the same “rules” (or lack thereof) that apply to them ought to apply to us. No self-respecting animal would shrink from attacking another animal that caused it unease. Why should human beings?

I seem to recall it was a sentient, talking alligator that said we should “do unto others, then split.” I wonder sometimes if that’s not how we view ourselves—as sentient lizards—and I wonder if we devalue our own existence so we will not have to reach so high to find ourselves nor have so far to fall when we fail.

Vote registers "deep concern" over Iran's human rights violations

mayakaath — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 09:59:08 -0800

UNITED NATIONS, 27 November 2012, (BWNS) – Citing a long list of abuses, a UN committee today expressed “deep concern” over “ongoing and recurring” human rights violations in Iran.

By a vote of 83 to 31 with 68 abstentions, the General Assembly’s Third Committee called upon Iran to stop such violations, to release prisoners of conscience, and to open its doors to international human rights monitors.

Among other things, the resolution noted Iran’s alarming use of the death penalty, the systematic targeting of human rights defenders, journalists and bloggers, and the “pervasive gender inequality and violence against women.” It also expressed concern over continuing discrimination against minorities, including the persecution of Iranian Baha’is.

The resolution was the 25th on human rights violations in Iran by the Third Committee since 1985 – and its length and specificity reflected the international community’s continuing alarm over increasing violence against Iranian citizens by their government, said Bani Dugal, the principal representative of the Baha’i International Community to the United Nations.

“The atmosphere in Iran continues to worsen for all Iranian citizens,” said Ms. Dugal. “If your viewpoint is different from that of Iran’s authoritarian regime, you are fundamentally in grave danger.”

“For the Baha’is – who are Iran’s largest non-Muslim religious minority – there has been persistent and worsening persecution at the hands of the government and its agents,” she said.

“This has been accompanied by increasing violence and a deliberate intensification of pressure aimed at disrupting Baha’i community life as a whole and destroying their viability.”

Ms. Dugal noted that more than 115 Baha’is are currently behind bars for their religious beliefs, and that hundreds more are in the legal system waiting to know their fate.

The text of the resolution – which was put forward by Canada and co-sponsored by 42 other countries – also calls on Iran to better cooperate with UN human rights monitors, particularly by allowing them to make visits to Iran, and asks the UN secretary general to report back next year on Iran’s progress at fulfilling its human rights obligations.

To read the article online, view photograph and access links:
http://news.bahai.org/story/931

For the Baha’i World News Service home page, go to:
http://news.bahai.org/

Misinformation, Disinformation and Fiction

mayakaath — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 10:52:11 -0800

Misinformation, Disinformation and Fiction:

My most recent blog posting on Common Ground Group. Just some musings on how easy it is to spread misinformation…

The Pathology of Faith, Part Two, Or: “It’s not our fault! Religion made us do it!”

mayakaath — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:26:00 -0700

The Pathology of Faith, Part Two, Or: “It’s not our fault! Religion made us do it!”:

I have come to believe, through long experience, that once we’ve categorized and labeled someone—telling ourselves that all atheists, or all theists or all blacks or all Muslims or all Jews etc. are this or that way—we’ve essentially dismissed them. It becomes easy not to deal with them as individuals, but rather as religious individuals, or black individuals, or liberal or conservative or whatever label we apply. The moment we pop someone into a category or apply a profile to them, we establish expectations for their behavior and thoughts, and filter what they say and do through that expectation, which makes it virtually impossible to see the real person behind the category. Why? Because we simply dismiss any information that does not fulfill our expectation.

The Pathology of Faith, Part One

mayakaath — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:51:03 -0700

The Pathology of Faith, Part One:

This blog came out of a fascinating dialogue I had with an anti-theist who saw me as a “religious type” rather than a person and my faith as a pathology. What began as a discussion of whether religion had any positives, quickly became a referendum on my personal psychological makeup.

I did not find this particularly insulting—I understand why some folks choose to look at religion and religious people this way. It did not make me mad or annoy me—I’ve noted elsewhere that the only thing that annoys me is when someone assumes I believe what I believe on a single data point. I did, however, find it bemusing.

How do you speak to someone who insists on interpreting everything you say through a set of filters? That’s what inspired this series that started last Wednesday on Common Ground Group.

This is Your World...

mayakaath — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:57:51 -0700

This is Your World...:

Something from my Lifejournal post today…

The Measure of Hate

mayakaath — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 19:43:00 -0700

On Facebook thread, a gentleman informed me that when it came to Muslims, “[I] don’t feel that most of them belong on the same planet with humans.”

He based this assessment, of course, on what he knows of Islamist extremists, terrorists, Salafists, Wahabists, and the recent attack on the Libyan embassy. Plus, of course, the protests and demonstrations of hundreds to thousands of Muslims in response to the insulting movie made by an American.

The Muslim demonstrators believe they are protesting the denigration of their faith and their beloved Prophet. The believe they are protesting American efforts to insult them and to attack their Muslim identity.

That is not what my gentleman friend believes they are protesting. In his mind, they are protesting the American right of free speech which is a core element of American identity. In his mind they are attacking American values. In his mind, this means THEY are not like US.

When I asked him to contemplate the meaning of his words, and to consider the historical precedents for dehumanizing those we don’t know, or understand, or like, he justified his position by saying that “When people come after me and mine because their religion proclaims that we are subhuman and do not deserve to share this earth with them unless we convert to their religion, it’s time to stand up and be counted.”

In other words, “They said it first. I’m just retaliating in kind.”

But THEY didn’t say that. The Qur’an does not speak of non-Muslims or non-Arabs in that way. The ideology against which this man is retaliating does not exist in the hearts of most Muslims. I’m sure it is the world view of some fanatics (and not just those of the Muslim faith, either).

But I have to ask: is this an American value? Is that what we teach our kids? “If your brother calls you a name, call him the same name back? If he hits you, hit him back?”

If a child calls a sibling a name, I suspect most parents would nip that in the bud by suggesting that two wrongs don’t make a right. Christ begins His dialogue on human behavior in the book of Matthew with a related observation: “Do not judge,” He says, “or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

Christ then went on to use the behavior of human parents toward their children as a jumping off point to discuss how God treats His children and how we should therefore treat our human siblings. “If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children,” He says in the oft-quoted Sermon on the Mount, ”how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”

I don’t know how many Americans judge all Muslims by the reprehensible actions of a few. I don’t know how many Muslims judge Americans by the reprehensible actions and attitudes of a few. I do know that it’s not all Muslims or even most Muslims or even a large minority of Muslims. For the hundreds that commit atrocities and the thousand who protest and chant “Death to America” there are tens of thousands—no, millions who heed God’s commandment to love.

I also know that two wrongs don’t make a right and that if we judge an entire faith and the people in it by a straw measure, then we have little room to complain if they use the same measure to judge us.

I’m sure this man didn’t think he was suggesting that all Muslims be killed (which is the only way I can think of to remove them from the planet) or really meant to suggest that they weren’t human. At least I hope that he meant neither of those things. But I did ask him to think about the role dehumanizing the “other” has played in world history. Suggesting those we wish to remove from the planet are not human has only ever been the first step … toward forced marches to reservations, toward slaving ships, toward concentration camps, toward gas chambers, toward killing fields, toward genocide.

So, here’s my question to this man: If I handed you a gun, could you remove this Muslim from the planet?

If the answer is is “no”, then let us consider the alternative to such hatred suggested in age after age through sacred texts.

Hatred does not cease by hatred; hatred ceases by love. This is an eternal commandment. -- Buddha, Dhammapada 1:15

O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of God is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And God has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things). — Muhammad, Quran, Surih 49:13

The utterance of God is a lamp, whose light is these words: Ye are the fruits of one tree, and the leaves of one branch. Deal ye one with another with the utmost love and harmony, with friendliness and fellowship. He Who is the Day Star of Truth beareth Me witness! So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth. — Baha’u’llah, Gleanings CXXXII

I charge you all that each one of you concentrate all the thoughts of your heart on love and unity. When a thought of war comes, oppose it by a stronger thought of peace. A thought of hatred must be destroyed by a more powerful thought of love. …When soldiers of the world draw their swords to kill, soldiers of God clasp each other’s hands! So may all the savagery of man disappear by the Mercy of God, working through the pure in heart and the sincere of soul. Do not think the peace of the world an ideal impossible to attain! Nothing is impossible to the Divine Benevolence of God. If you desire with all your heart, friendship with every race on earth, your thought, spiritual and positive, will spread; it will become the desire of others, growing stronger and stronger, until it reaches the minds of all men. Do not despair! Work steadily. Sincerity and love will conquer hate.” — Abdu’l-Baha, Paris Talks p. 31

The Evolution of Everything 2: Getting Through Puberty

mayakaath — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:29:56 -0700

The Evolution of Everything 2: Getting Through Puberty:

From the beginning to the end of his life man passes through certain periods or stages each of which is marked by certain conditions peculiar to itself…

Similarly there are periods and stages in the life of the aggregate world of humanity which at one time was passing through its degree of childhood, at another its time of youth but now has entered its long presaged period of maturity, the evidences of which are everywhere visible and apparent. Therefore the requirements and conditions of former periods have changed and merged into exigencies which distinctly characterize the present age of the world of mankind. That which was applicable to human needs during the early history of the race could neither meet nor satisfy the demands of this day and period of newness and consummation. Humanity has emerged from its former degrees of limitation and preliminary training. Man must now become imbued with new virtues and powers, new moralities, new capacities. New bounties, bestowals and perfections are awaiting and already descending upon him. The gifts and graces of the period of youth although timely and sufficient during the adolescence of the world of mankind, are now incapable of meeting the requirements of its maturity. The playthings of childhood and infancy no longer satisfy or interest the adult mind. — Abdu’l-Bahá. Foundations of World Unity, p. 10

The Evolutionary Nature of Everything—1: Why Change Happens

mayakaath — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 12:12:26 -0700

The Evolutionary Nature of Everything—1: Why Change Happens:

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about evolution and Evolution. Evolution with a small “e” is about physical development—the development of the fetus in the womb of its mother, passing through a variety of stages before it becomes recognizably human and independently viable; the physical development of the species (which maybe is evolution in small caps) in which man has passed through a variety of physical forms before arriving at this particular stage at which it has a quaking sense of itself as human, not cat or dog or ape. …

Read more at Common Ground Group, The Blog

People, Guns & Paralysis

mayakaath — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:44:00 -0700

Alas again, the news is full of domestic terrorism perpetrated against innocents. The stories seem to be piling up like waves on a breakwater—the next coming before the last one has completely faded from view.

I don’t know if Wade Page could be classed by gun enthusiasts as a ‘mall ninja’ (a phrase I learned from a friend through a thread of my Facebook page and applied to James Holmes of Aurora), but he was ex-military and connected to a white supremacist group. Some think he may have mistaken the Sikhs for Muslims.

One commenter cited the series of massacres that have occurred in the past year or so, including the killing of Afghani innocents by an American service man and Anders Breivik’s attack on the youth of his own country. Their conclusion: Terrorism has no religion.

I’ve been engaged in an extended discussion on my FB page about the value of human life balanced against the rights of individuals to own things—in this case, certain types of guns in which it has been suggested that we cannot discuss changing Article II of the Bill of Rights because the Supreme Court has rendered a decision about its meaning. I haven’t had time to fully study that ruling, but I intend to do so because I’ve already heart too many different renderings of what their decision means.

Here is the text of Article II of the amendment: “A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I have it memorized.

Taken at face value, here’s what the law says in more modern English: “Since a free State needs a well-regulated Militia, the people shall have the uninfringed right to own and carry weapons.”

To infringe on something means to limit it in some way.

So, again, taken at face value, this article of the amendment says that the right to own arms (it does not specify guns) cannot be limited. There is no wiggle room written into the text of the sentence itself, which calls into question any existing gun laws that place limits on the ownership of arms, whether they be guns, knives, crossbows, etc. And depending on how broadly one defines “arms” it could also be construed to include bazookas, grenades, rocket launchers, ad infinitum. No, these things did not exist at the time the amendment was written, but I’ve encountered the argument that that doesn’t matter.

To argue that common sense would dictate against the private ownership of bazookas is to stray into interpretation and infringement because one person’s commonsense would not stop with bazookas. The only way to uphold the amendment without interpretation or infringement is to take it as it is. Once we begin parsing what “infringed” means or arguing from commonsense, or talking about contexts now and 223 years ago, we have amended the amendment without actually following the procedure outlined by the founding fathers.

I am not arguing for the untrammeled ownership of any type of weapon, by the way, I am simply taking this provision of our constitution at face value. In context, it makes sense that the nascent government felt it necessary to have citizens armed and ready to fight against the British, the French or any other enemy that might not have gotten the message that the United States was now a sovereign and free State. The Militia Act of 1792 puts this sensibility into quite detailed words in stating that all and any able-bodied male citizen may be called to serve in a Militia at the pleasure of the President.

So, let’s take the article at face value and assume that we cannot infringe on a citizen’s right to bear arms. A number of people, including respected psychologists, have suggested that the answer lies in controlling the humans and their mood disorders and passions, not the guns.

Certainly, this is true, but can we do that? How might we practice that in a society in which individual rights and privileges are paramount?

I’d suggest that there’s no way for our government, or us as individuals to control the passions of other people. We can only control our own passions and try to teach our children to control theirs. We can teach kindness, tolerance, selflessness—but only if we value those things.

But it seems as if a lot of people in the US, at any rate, are headed in the opposite direction. Take the issue of this post: gun violence. Tempers flare at the mere mention of amending the constitution to keep it up to date with the state of arms and society. Passions cause people to shout each other down, sometimes using such images as prying guns out of cold dead hands. We will not only kill with our guns, we will die for them. We seem more and more governed by our passions—at least in the safety of online anonymity—and less inclined to control them.

Can we be surprised when those passions sometimes result in a loss of life?

If we cannot control our passions, will we be inclined to allow anyone else to tell us or compel us to control them? I can only answer that question for myself. As a Baha’i, I’ve willingly committed myself to employing the guidance of my faith in helping me school my passions so that they are channeled into constructive rather than destructive pursuits. I can’t—I won’t—control anyone else. I can, as a parent, try to instill in my children a sense of the sacredness of human life (all life, really) but I do it in a society in which a small, but vocal minority mocks the very concept of sacredness and another, equally vocal minority holds individual rights above life itself.

Indeed, I cannot (and should not) control even my own children. I can only try to guide them in learning to control themselves.

What about controlling mood disorders? Can’t our laws protect us from the truly insane?

One psychologist proposed unspecified changes to our mental healthcare system to deal with the problem of gun violence. I would be interested to know what changes he would propose. In the cases of Jared Lee Loughner (Tempe shootings), Seung-Hui Cho (VA Tech shootings), and James Holmes (Aurora), people had noted peculiar behavior. Why didn’t they report it, or if they did report it, why was nothing done?

The mental health codes in this country are written to protect the individual from involuntary treatment or institutionalization. The individual must be proven to the satisfaction of law enforcement that they would be a danger to themselves or others before they could be remanded into a doctor’s care. Unfortunately, the first intimation of this danger is often a Columbine, a VA Tech, a Tempe, an Aurora, an Oak Creek. The collection of vast stores of weapons coupled with odd behavior is not enough to force an American citizen into the mental healthcare system.

A new story broke this week in which another catastrophe was averted by sheer luck. Police knew the man in question was unbalanced and in possession of legally purchased weapons. His family had even expressed their concern. But the police couldn’t intervene until the man did something illegal. He did. On his way to a planned killing, he happened to speed, was pulled over and found to be in possession of an assault rifle.

In a nutshell, the same concern for individual sovereignty that drives the acrimonious debate over Article II of the Bill of Rights, has informed the creation of laws pertaining to mental disorders. We do not want to be locked up or medicated against our will and we can imagine (or at least some of us can) a time when our government will use that pretext to lock up law-abiding citizens by saying they are mentally ill. Or they might lock someone up because they are quite legally collecting a lot of arms. Or, as one law enforcement officer in the above case noted, because they are wearing a purple suit.

The bottom line here, seems to be trust. We Americans do not trust our government and we do not trust each other. We trust ourselves perhaps too much and our concept of who is “us” seems to have broken down to its finest components. We are each “us” and everyone else is the “them” who cannot be trusted to care about “us” and our rights.

Our fear of having our sovereign individual rights trodden upon is what shuts down any talk of changes to law or attitudes related to weapons. It is also what keeps those who oversee the deterioration of a loved one, friend, family member or patient from moving to have someone tested against their will for a mental disorder.

It is an unfortunate truth that most people in the throes of a mood disorder do not believe they are sick or need to be medicated. I know this from experience with friends who have such disorders. They believe, as many sane people do, that their version of the world is the correct version and that what they do is necessary to its progress.

In this country, we hold the rights of individuals as the highest good because only the individual can be completely trusted to care about the individual. The violence that we experience at the hands of our fellow citizens is a natural outcome of this reality. If we are to decrease the number of atrocities committed in this country out of hatred, fear, or paranoia, we will have to change how we perceive the relative value of our individual sovereign rights and the lives of our fellow human beings. And we will have to learn to trust.

Until then, these thoughts of controlling ourselves or our access to weapons are heretical thoughts we cannot think, and a discussion we cannot have.

(via Supreme Court Upholds President Obama’s Health Care...

mayakaath — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:19:10 -0700

(via Supreme Court Upholds President Obama’s Health Care Reform | The White House)

Not perfect but it’s a first step and we can make it better if we work together instead of trying to tear each other apart. I’m looking forward to us having a real universal healthcare system.

Those In Need

mayakaath — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:33:28 -0700

Those In Need:

From the Book View Cafe Blog - “Igor” talks about how homelessness affects him in a very personal way.

Why Religion 3: An Express Train to Valhalla

mayakaath — Thu, 10 May 2012 13:15:38 -0700

Why Religion 3: An Express Train to Valhalla:

I often come across the assumption that I view my religion as a vehicle—the express train to Valhalla. This scenario proposes that I am concerned chiefly with my personal salvation and am obedient to the laws of my faith for that reason alone.

Why Religion 2: Religion as Accessory

mayakaath — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:57:52 -0700

Why Religion 2: Religion as Accessory:

Is religion like a pair of shoes that religious folks can just change on a whim? Here’s what it looks like from my corner of the Universe…