Friday, January 30, 2009

Equal

From Jesus and Mo:
I thought this comment was particularly relevant today given announcements and admissions of the Rev. Ted Haggard's hypocritical activities. It seems to be a common theme throughout history: people reviling a particular action in public, while partaking in private. 

Perhaps we are predisposed to it, because I think, on some level, we all do it. For example, while in traffic, I get upset when someone does something irresponsible while they aren't paying attention.  While, at the same time, when I get distracted, and potentially confuse traffic or cut someone off, I feel embarrassed, and hope that the other car will understand that it was an accident.  

Still, there certainly are levels of hypocrisy that I hope I never stoop to - such as asserting that some groups of people are not eligible for the same basic human rights that I enjoy, such as the freedom to marry, to adopt children, to have a fair chance of getting a job, to serve in the military without hiding who I am as a person.  Decidedly, these things can be difficult or impossible for people in the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bi and transgender) community, but also, depending on the location, they can be challenging for atheists and those in non-Christian religions.

2 comments:

EngineerRN said...

Hypocrisy is easy to find. My favorite example is Al Gore who makes a great living talking about decreasing our carbon footprint while living a lavish carbon releasing lifestyle.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm
He even makes a profit from the carbon credits which he pays to himself to offset his emissions.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528

mathbionerd said...

Nice links. I guess, then, perhaps Mr. Gore isn't as concerned with climate change as he purports to be.

Further, I like your suggestion of developing a system for carbon credits that actually helps solve the problem. For example, instead of buying $100,000 worth of "carbon credits", which, as shown in this case, may only be putting the money in a big cycle, why don't we have people invest $100,000 in re-foresting logged areas, or preserving national parks (our national parks are in DESPERATE need of funding), or some other activity that directly impacts our environment?