Who defines things? Who decides what's acceptable, where the boundaries are?
Someone used the word extremist the other day.
I went off on my own little mental tangent, thinking of all the extremists I know: Angela, Bev, Betty, Bob, Cheryl, Cindy, Ngahuia, Rene, Phyllis, Sharman, Tiffany, many of those in my Facebook Friends list . . .
The same vague logic holds true for fundamentalists.
Am I a fundamentalist? Most sports coaches I know are. They want their developing players to get the fundamentals down or they can’t move on to the more complex layers of the game. Musicians too must master the fundamentals. So must young students. How many textbook titles begin with “The Fundamentals of . . . .”? Amazon gave me 44,192 Results.
Think of feminists.
A real feminist would not consider me kin on any scale. I do still have my maiden name, but that’s another story. I don’t march, discard undergarments, write letters or read feminist literature. I just soak up the benefits of all they’ve accomplished for women over the past decades. I would only be considered a feminist by some male church leaders who think women should stay in the kitchen and nursery.
Extremist?
Hmmm. That word seems to be used as a bad thing so as to retrain people to think moderation is ideal, that we can’t be passionate about anything. I’m an extremist in that I’m not a Sunday Christian. I live my life as an expression of my love for Jesus, and for those He loved [that would be you]. My identity in Christ is central to who I am. The work He has done in me has given you a Jill worth knowing. And yep, I have earned my crust from serving God for over 25 years. With every new educational accomplishment, my brother asked me, “So now can you get a real job?”
And finally, morality.
Who defines that? The voting public? Who decides what degree of misappropriation is ok and does that depend on how it was spent? In countries like New Zealand, where I can rent an adult video in my local village video shop, where same-sex civil union and prostitution is legal, voted in to law by parliament and generally accepted by the public, how does pornography fall beyond the pale?
Let me explain. In a recent accounting of Parliamentary credit cards, some government ministers were shown to have added things on to their hotel accounts and credit cards that weren’t strictly related to their jobs. Shane Jones misspent government funds, then paid them back. He’s in the stew right now with his family and his community because he disappointed them. He cares and I think he will implement some changes. Chris Carter is arrogant, seemingly above the law and thinks everyone is picking on him. It appears he only paid the money back AFTER the reports came out and his back was against the wall. The reporters respect Shane, while Chris is chased through the halls of government buildings.
Do we empower people to lead our democratic governments based on their morals, and is there such a written code to which they must all sign off so we are on common ground when judging behaviour?
I think not.
Misappropriating company funds is a major crime in many societies! Spending money that is not yours is dishonest. There are laws against that and it is commonly understood amongst humans that we aren’t supposed to do that. What you spend it on, if other than its designated purpose, doesn’t make it more right or more wrong; whether flowers or film, golf clubs or cigars.
Repay it.
Apologise, if you’re sorry.
Be smart about how you use your company credit card.
If we assumed everyone was moral, we wouldn’t need rules, laws, codes or audits. We know we’re not, so we live under a Good/Evil
Still haven’t defined moral, have I?
Comments