The policy action response—vis-à-vis that of “thoughts and prayers”—suggests a rejection of religion for solving the gun violence epidemic in the U.S. But it’s a bit more complicated and more faith-full than it appears upon first glance.
We are what happens when the dirt gets a voice, when the earth gets a conscience, when the world has arms and legs and a thinking, rational mind that can relate to the Creator.
While meaning is certainly subjective, morality is also not completely objective, either.
What is the value and what are the limits of “slacktivism” — low-risk, low-cost activities that aim to make the world better?
There is a difference been retributive justice, which gives us a primal sense of pleasure, and restorative justice, which is about our responsibilities as we try move forward from this moment on.
Either God exists, or God doesn’t. And we have absolutely no control over that fact. And so because there’s nothing we can do about whether there is a God or not, I’ve never found that question to be a particularly interesting one to ask. After all, when the question is framed in that way, there are really only three answers people can give — “Yes, I do,” “No, I don’t,” or “I’m not sure.”
The most effective punishments generally exceed their crimes, because they not only punish the wrong-doer, they act as a powerful deterrents. But “effective” doesn’t necessarily mean “moral.”
Perhaps the Robin Hood story endures even up to today because thinking about “giving to the poor” simply makes us feel good (although certainly just “taking from the rich” is not what we should do!). So maybe we should strive to become a bit more like Robin Hood on the “giving” part of that equation — not only would it make the world more fair, it would make us feel better, as well.