I passionately refuse to bow to social, media, political pressures, to unfairly, unequally refer even emphasize one or two ethic groups, or any defined group, to the exclusion of others.
Whatever reason for such arbitrarily selective referencing and emphasizing matters not, for it only serves to justify "inconsistency" whether intentional or not. The unfortunate, unavoidable fact is this. These popular mantras, slogans or rally-cries today cannot be "consistently" expressed upon swapping one group of people for another without mass slandering, dissing, defaming, cancelling, censoring thus condemning. The hysterical response(s) should raise commonly sensible if not studiously logical flags in the minds of all, but sadly it does not.If politically, socially not allowed to swap with any and all groups of people, then the motives cloaked and shrouded by these mantras, slogans or rally-cries should be obvious; either naively, gravely misguided or covetously, violently disturbed. There is no third alternative explanation.
If one correctly understands principle, morality, justice or ethic as something "consistently" understood, applied and practiced, then the acid test is simply this; is it "consistently" understood, applied and practiced. My apologies for the redundancy, but "consistency" is the critical dynamic absent in nearly all current discussions and issues regarding polity, policy, society, economy, equality, justice, fairness, etc. Yet "consistency" is an absolute dynamic necessary by which to rightly, accurately judge then condemn or exonerate the same.
Come let us Reason (Is 1:18). Peace is always a Choice (Mt 5:9).
Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath (2 Tm 2:15 / Cl 3:23).
If one reads the above comment/argument as though it applies to the other party, the other side, the other group, the other person... then the "consistent" point eludes therefore read, study, ponder and labor over it again.
ReplyDelete