When something is “defined”, the intent is to establish a clear meaning for those questioning what it is and how it works. That definition normally has some parameters which establish the boundaries of that concern. Take for example the definition of a “noun” is a person, place, or thing. While giving the word meaning it the definition also establishes boundaries…it must be a person, place, or thing to be referred to as a noun. That is fine and no one challenges it until someone comes along and decides that “nouns” could be used in other ways if the “meaning” was broadened and more specific thus eliminating the reference to “thing” as nothing likes to be referred to as a “thing”. The change is made and suddenly people are quite vague as to what the limits of the definition of a “noun” is because one word, cited to be offensive in nature, was eliminated and replaced by many more words used to act as examples but never covering the gambit as efficiently and effectively as the word “thing” did for all that time.
Early on in the growth of this nation, people found their way to America in search of what was termed “the American Dream”. They wanted to be part of the success and opportunities which seemed to abound in this country. They wanted to be assimilated into the culture and referred to as an “American”. They made the journey, endured Ellis Island and the hardships associated with becoming citizens and one day, the time came to take that oath of citizenship, and their dreams began to emerge. For the first time in their lives, they were Americans and they were proud of it.
Things have changed now. Some estimates say that we have as many as 15 million illegal immigrants in this country at present. They broke the law in coming here by transiting our borders in unauthorized fashion in the dead of night. They hid out until there were so many of them that hiding was no longer necessary. They could hide in broad daylight. When officials decided to round them up, someone came up with the brilliant idea that it was an infringement on their rights to question their presence and prove that they were here legally. Thus, we now forbid any challenge as to such suspicions because we have labeled that action as “profiling”. These people are no longer illegal immigrants but, in the politically correct sense, they are undocumented future citizenship applicants. By renaming them, we have eliminated any reference to the illegal actions on their part in coming here and for good reason….votes in future elections.
We have Supreme Court justices suggesting that the majority of Americans who believe in the sanctity of marriage are “exclusionists” based on the traditional definition throughout the history of marriage in this nation. In order to prove that is not true, we must now re-define marriage and be ready to re-define it again and again and again if the existing definition does not suit some sect within the population. You might say that “marriage” falls into the same bin as the “noun”. And, of course, the intent here is to exclude…could there be any other reason other than common sense and logic?
My son wanted to serve in the military. He attempted to gain entry into the various branches all with the same end result…he was rejected. Now, my son has an ordinary functional body with arms, legs, ears, eyes, etc. but the U.S. military refrained from utilizing his services even though we have an all-volunteer military today. They refrained because of one thing…he has been a Type I diabetic since he was eleven years of age. Now my son certainly had his moments with this life-long, incurable disease. The fact that the condition cannot be cured should be burden enough for him. Sadly that was not the case…it also deprived him of the opportunity to serve in the military. In effect, that policy of the military is exclusionary and based on the most rigorous situations a person might encounter in military service but still it stands…on the basis of being a Type I Diabetic, my son was “excluded” along with anyone else like him from participating in the military.
My son had his issues early on with diabetes in that he ignored the potential dangers of the disease as do so many with the condition. After some sobering experiences, he turned his attitude around, began eating right and maintains a high exercise regime. At the present, he is in above average condition, muscular, toned, and has a blood-glucose saturation level that is probably better than some non-diabetics. Still, he is not the norm, but he is still excluded because, due to the diabetes, he does not fit the definition of a military candidate. One can be gay and be in the military. One can have hypertension and still be in the military but no one regardless of condition or discipline may serve in the military with diabetes.
So…we cannot define marriage in a manner which is exclusionary but it is okay to reject a person from service in the military on the basis of an exclusionary health condition. In one case, we simply change the definition but in the other, it is what it is and those encountering that finding need to just suck it up and go on. My son tried and likely would have been a good soldier given his focus and discipline with his diabetes but he has no voice or right in the choice. On the other hand, the Supreme Court says that we can change the definition of “marriage” to anything we want it to be if we can find some group who is unhappy with their situation as being “excluded from” the marriage process as currently defined.
It now appears that, as a nation, we are going to take the same approach to abortion. If the person seeking the abortion waits too long and exceeds the legal limits of the procedure, then we simply re-define the procedure. We change our wording so that the doctor who snips the spinal cord of the unborn child in the womb is no longer committing a murder of an unborn human but simply destroying an unwanted fetus from the body of a woman exercising her right to choice. Our changes of words and definitions salve our conscience but nothing can remove the stain of murder of the unborn from our soul. We may have not played a direct part but we certainly did our part to justify the acceptance of it by embracing the semantics of the act.
This is the process we now follow…be it marriage, abortion, immigration, or any other social issue on the books. If some person or group cries “exclusion”, we simply change the words to fit the situation and all they pain and suffering are gone. There is no need for compliance with silly requirements of a defined set of parameters when change is so easily accomplished with the stroke of a pen. How could we have been as ignorant as a society for so, so, many decades before having our eyes opened by the liberal element?
Those seeking such change see it as no big deal. They see no consequences or basis for concern when it comes to the progression of such attitudes in our society. They certainly can complain about the way things were but have caution is changing them to suit the needs of those desiring to participate. This approach, no doubt, is a function of our education system which has placed far more importance on teaching social tolerance than it does on valuing social conformance. There is no need to conform when the tools of change are so accessible. Certainly this must be yet another avenue of that great sage, Barack Obama’s philosophy of “fundamental transformation”.
Churches throughout America seek and pray for new members on the basis of one requirement…one must accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Here again, we have another fine example of exclusion as there are parameters to inclusion. This dedication to the Lord as a pathway to membership may be questioned at some point on the basis that it is “exclusionary” and does not allow all who might participate to take advantage of it because there are conditions and parameters attached. At that point, we just might have to re-write the definition of “Christianity” to better suit all needs. Where do we stop?
Our youthful generations preach and subscribe to “tolerance” rather than compliance. They see no need to comply for that is the action which breeds an atmosphere of accountability. If compliance is a concern and one fails to comply…then responsibility and accountability arise in the aftermath. We can take all that away simply by “re-defining” our processes and methods in such a manner as to have them pivot on tolerance. There is no need to make cultural adjustments to become a citizen of the USA…heck, we’ll just adjust to fit your needs. Tolerance is an emotional high until it starts to rot the fabric of all that we know then it turns into panic and dilemma. By that point, the opportunity to put on the brakes has long since passed and the tolerance and change rules the day.
Could it be that God was a bit too hasty with his actions toward Sodom and Gomorrah? Perhaps tolerance and change with a lack of accountability would have been a better choice.
©Copyright WBrown2013. All Rights Reserved.