I just realized that if you disagree with someone’s post (don’t “like,”) you can’t respond to it. I had just tried when I realized that, and therefore couldn’t respond to a creative but questionable post. I had thought to respond: “Sorry, I can’t help populate your blog’s readership. My Likes go to those blogs which are marginally enriching. I do encourage you to kick at restraints, but don’t want a hand in negatively affecting others. So sorry about your mother.” (Maybe I just don’t realize how much I may be enjoying that policy also. being protected from negative feedback).
LGBTQ students are omitted from the list of protected categories that includes Nazism– in a new bill concerning re-structuring educational criteria in the schools, co-authored by Indiana State Senator Scott Baldwin. The bill drew attention when one of its co-authors said that teachers should be impartial in teaching about Nazism. Nazism is recommended to be protected from criticism, but not LGBTQ. There used to be a teacher shortage and I predict another one is on the horizon. Daily Kos’s reporting on the proposed bill contains the concern that “Baldwin’s bill doesn’t just ban teachers from teaching that Nazism is bad. It also allows parents “to opt into or out of certain educational activities and curricular materials under certain conditions,” potentially forcing teachers to constantly adjust the curriculum for multiple individual students based not on legitimate educational needs but on the particular prejudices of their parents. (Italics mine).
Moral Dilemma: I’ve been struggling with the notion whether or not we have the right–or moral mandate–to interfere with other countries’ cultural practices, even if they are against humanity, such as clitorectomy or Sharia law any more than other countries have the right to interfere in any of our human rights violations. It seems we may limit ourselves to providing aid to the victims of other cultures, but what have we done in the area of aiding one potential leader over another in other countries’ elections, possibly secretively? It seems to be a murky area. “One World Government” appears to be an anathema idea to many, but wouldn’t it be nice if we could all share amicable peace agreements? The almost paralyzing prospect of a space war (see my earlier post “Who Was Eric Blair”) spotlights our vulnerability as a planet from ourselves. A few have welcomed the notion of extraterrestrial “flying saucers” as a motivator to band together on Earth in a truly united front … let’s say “bond together”. And then I think of sharia law, and wonder. Sigh, we’d have to get past our evolutionary limits and our insistence on the prioritizing of our own religious biases, and past the psychological need to compete, and think well of oneself by winning or excelling or amassing wealth, feeling ashamed if we do not measure up to how we think others judge us. Undoing the class war is one gargantuan obstacle. Will climate change or our own innate tendencies do us in first?