Tag Archives: American way of life

Choosing Leisure in a Frantic World

 

Religious orders in the Middle Ages developed efficient methods of work in order to toil less and enjoy more leisure for prayers and other religious activities. As Europe entered the modern era, people began taking their surplus in goods rather than leisure. (Man, Energy, Society by Earl Cook.)

In prior generations, survival taught its own lessons: work efficiently, be frugal, or starve. After World War II, Americans found themselves in a golden age of plenty. One wage earner could support four or more people with a forty-hour work week. One could survive even though working less than ever before.

Americans, knowingly or not, faced a choice. We could work less and allow more time for other pursuits: family, religious activity, creative pursuits, community work, more education. Fathers could spend more time with their families, allowing mothers to explore outside career interests if they chose. Singles could work part time and obtain more education or pursue creative work that didn’t pay as well, if their talents led them there. Twenty-hour per week jobs might become the norm.

Or Americans could continue to work as they had and buy more and more things. Once “things” became the goal of work, however, the desire for more and more material goods required greater commitment to job and career.

To overcome consumerism, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. believed that “we must rapidly begin to shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society.” By living “deliberately”—as Henry David Thoreau understood—we spend less, work less and enjoy life more.

We now are rich in things (or were before the Great Recession) and poor toward God, friends, families, communities, and our inner lives. To choose a Biblical metaphor, we worked the fields seven days a week, skipping our Sabbath days of rest. Now we find an enforced rest in unemployment and under employment.

 

So How Does Politics Affect Democracy?

 

The United States is one of the world’s oldest democratic republics, but democracy as practiced here is very much a work in progress. Its continuance is not guaranteed. Politics and power weave uneasily through our relatively new experiment in democracy.

A recent article suggests: “Politics is at once integral to the democratic process in the United States and the cause of politicians’ acting against the national interest in order to win or stay in public office.” (Leslie H. Gelb, Foreign Affairs, May/June, 2009.)

With few exceptions, the history of civilizations has been the history of groups seizing power and doing all they can to retain that power regardless of what it does to others. The failure or success of the American experiment in democracy is determined by whether we give in to that natural tendency to want ultimate power or whether we overcome that tendency and respect others as part of the democratic process.

Benjamin Franklin is said to have remarked at the signing of the Declaration of Independence: “Gentleman, we must all hang together or, assuredly, we shall hang separately.”

Humility requires us to admit that no one of us has perfect understanding. We need each other. We need contrasting, and even competing ideas. We should welcome the ideas of those with whom we disagree. If we seriously consider them, we either discover a better way that incorporates our view with theirs, or find stronger reasons for believing as we do and that may persuade others to our viewpoint. And no one of us will win all the time. If we find ourselves on the losing side, we should lose with grace.

The Past as Character in Quiet Deception

 

“We can only control our own actions and choices. After that, control passes from our hands. We have to live with the results.” So says an older woman to the young woman protagonist in my story Quiet Deception, my second novel.

The characters, from the young woman, Kim, all the way up to her professors, her supposed role models, make choices and live with the results. They live with sorrow, joy, fear, regret, forgiveness, familial love between husband and wife and father and son, friendship (sometimes when other love is absent), a growing knowledge of God’s love, and ultimate victory, though a bittersweet victory for some.

The time period, from the end of World War II through the 1970’s, is, in a sense, a character also, mirroring the choices of the protagonists. Americans made choices during that time that we live with today.

The Right to Persuade Versus Intolerance

The doorbell rings. Two women want to discuss a religion you are not interested in. You tell them no thanks and shut the door.

You notice that you have lost weight on your new diet. You plan to tell your slightly overweight friend about the diet. She might like to try it, too.

You open the mail. A letter from your bank outlines a service you do not want. You toss it in the trash.

You read an article about two schools of thought concerning a new treatment for skin cancer. It will require more testing and rigorous debate as to which has the best cure rate, least side effects, and so on.

You read another article about Bhutan, an Asian nation in the eastern Himalaya mountains, predominantly Buddhist. Bhutan’s constitution guarantees religious freedom, but conversion is unlawful. Buddhism is, for many, a part of their country’s culture. Bhutan’s Christians have sought clarification. Bhutan’s Prime Minister Jigmi Yoser Thinley states his opposition to religious conversion: “It’s the worst form of intolerance. And it divides families and societies.”

When do we have the right to attempt the persuasion of someone to a set of convictions that are meaningful to us? And to what degree should we persuade? Or should we ever persuade?

Is it intolerant to believe, as in one of the above examples, that one cancer treatment may be better than another and to lobby for that practice?

Attempts to persuade range from political and religious arguments to medical debates and ads for commercial products. Some are hardly life altering, but some are. Some can be proved by the scientific method, and some can’t.

Our Constitution gives this country’s citizens the right to freedom of speech and of religion. A few use these freedoms in ways that we abhor, but diverse views are a necessary part of growth and advancement. Cultures become static if debate and change are forbidden. Political ads may annoy us but few of us would choose to live in Syria or other countries where opposing views that question the regime are not allowed. Persuasion becomes intolerance when the persuader fails to respect another’s opinions or the person’s right to choose or to be left alone if they wish.

Of course, opening a culture to possible change is risky. Could Christianity threaten our American way of life—discouraging rampant consumerism, for example—if genuinely practiced?