The World We Live In:
"Yes We Can" chant the Obama crowd, interspersed with "Our Time Has Come" and "Not This Time". Black or not---well known or not----Obama's words resonate with a diverse population of our citizens. "We Can Be One People----red state or blue state; black, white or hispanic; blue collar or white collar; straight or gay; republican or democrat; this religion or that religion; etc". And so the pitch goes, reminding us with a steady drum beat that "Yes We Can".
I hope "We Can". But it helps if one can come to grips with the kind of world in which we live. Exactly what is this commonality which will enable us to become 'One' in order to achieve Justice and Freedom for all? We are of course, as a global entity of humans living in a 'little gleam of Time between two eternities', merely a footnote in the evolutionary process, a process that has been going on now for millions of years. Whatever God is, He is certainly the Creator of this process---a process driven by the reshuffling of DNA molecules, these bricks of life, which generate endless evolving species---and the general direction of these evolving life forms has always been progressively more refined, more 'intelligent', more sophisticated, imbued with new capabilities. It is hard to imagine what our human offspring will look like or be like a million years from now. 'Whatever will be, will be' is about the sum of it with one hitch: humans are the first species with the ability to control---to some advanced degree---their own destiny, both personal and as a species. Thus 'Yes We Can' has a ring of truth to it, but more uncertainty to it than certainty.
We live currently in a world governed by a collective state of mind that is self destructive to bringing any sort of Justice and Freedom to all. Right now there is very little We and a whole lot of Me, both as individuals and as groups/nations. Survival of the fittest has begun to lose any reasonable meaning in that human capabilities have risen to the level at which mass destruction of humans and other species can be done indiscriminately---some sort of gun rat-atat-tat or explosive 'boom' and people are mowed down like corn stalks at harvest. It is predicted that 100 million people will starve to death across the globe in the next few years. Any rational mind knows, it really does, that our earth does not have unlimited natural resources, and that consequently there is no way all the people on the globe could possibly live a quality of life that some of us now do. And yet, with the possible exception of China, there is no population policy. If any Presidential candidate has a population policy it is a well kept secret. In reality, 'sanctity of life' advocates are, in essence, against any sanctity of life that is directed at the human species as a whole. Population control, in their mind, is murder. The unnecessary deaths of millions and millions of humans on the globe by starvation, preventable diseases, and violence becomes, by their own strange definition of sanctity of life, a normal and acceptable consequence of their own conception of sanctity of life---some sort of multiply like rabbits and the hell with the consequences; I guess we can pray our way out of the consequences---so we'll just pray for the 100 million people who are about to starve to death.
It does seem that any 'Yes We Can' is up against ingrained puerile 'hot button' issues that serve as immovable obstacles to any attention to more important issues. I mean the right to possess guns (even assault guns), prayers in schools, flag burning, gay marriage, abortion, and recreational drug laws become the focus of one's mentality at the expense of more important issues affecting the quality of life and future of humanity. There can be no "Yes We Can" until our priorities, both in domestic and foreign policies, become reorganized and truly directed at freedom and justice for all. Until the commonality of justice revolves around the truly global moral principle of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" there can be no "Yes We Can". Justice and Freedom always go together. If someone wants to pray in school they have the right to do so. They do not have a right to mandate others pray in school. If someone burns a flag as a means of protest they have a right to do so providing they do not disrupt the lives of others. Two consenting adults have the right to engage in any kind of sex they so choose providing they do not do perform their sexual acts in places offensive to others. Two adults who want to marry have the right to marry the person of their choice just as others have the right to marry the person of their choice. Religious beliefs of all kinds, within the context of established laws to protect the welfare of others in society, should be exercised by churches, not governments. Who can marry who, is a proper consideration by a religious group. Governments should get out of the marriage business. I suppose, like in so many other matters, the government can tax marriages conducted by churches. Even non believers, as happens all the time, can find a church to marry them. And if they can't, if they are of age, they could marry themselves and just pay the proper fee to the government to register themselves as married in the eyes of the law. Abortion is an issue misdirected. The government has a legitimate right to have a population policy and place limitations on reproduction in order to protect the welfare of humanity as a whole. Whether abortion is ever an acceptable means to restrict population control is a religious decision and should remain so. It would seem strange that most people would ever select abortion as a means of birth control. The alternatives for birth control would be far more attractive. All drug use, recreational or otherwise, is a medical matter. All drugs have side effects. All drugs can be misused. When individuals use recreational drugs to fight feelings of hopelessness or pick up their mood, or reduce mental stress from living, it is the causes of these stresses which need correction, not jailing people for the misuse of a drug. Responsible use of drugs, medical or recreational, is the goal, and the whole business a medical issue---period.
Thus 'Yes we can' is still on the table as an option to save humanity, but is being slid by Mother Nature, and the ever increasing accumulation of wealth into the hands of a privileged few, toward the edge of the table. 'Yes we can' is an option soon to be lost. And one of the biggest obstacles in the way is the predominance of inherited religious dogma over the fundamental tenet of all religions---"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". That is the commonality of all ethics and the only basis upon which "Yes We Can" can become efficacious. Forget 'God Bless America' and 'Allah Bless' whatever, and all humanity pray instead "that God give us all the strength to do right, as best we see the right,---based on the common principle of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' Then, "Yes We Can".
