Call it question day… a few thought-filled, brief ones…
If the Supreme Court rules that the healthcare law — and specifically, the individual mandate — is constitutional, will all those who have declared otherwise acknowledge that they were wrong?
If the Supreme Court rules that the healthcare law — and specifically, the individual mandate — is unconstitutional, will the President and all those who have declared otherwise acknowledge they were wrong?
If concrete evidence is found that George Zimmerman was unprovoked in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin, will his vocal supporters acknowledge they were wrong?
If concrete evidence is found that Trayvon Martin did indeed physically attack George Zimmerman, will Martin’s supporters acknowledge they were wrong?
Oh, how the arrogant grieve me. They pour out words, full of boasting, crushing those with whom they disagree. When will they become wise? We aren’t good at admitting our wrongs.
Chances are likely that in most (if not all) of the above, instead of humbling oneself and acknowledging potential mistakes, those on the opposing side of the proclaimed truth will do one or both of the following:
- Attack the judge.
- Politicize the judgment.
Dare we ask: why? Why is responding wisely so hard?
In Sunday’s blog identifying the prevalent motives for all those interested or involved in the Trayvon Martin investigation, the Intramuralist proposed that justice is an innate human desire. We desire justice. We seek justice. We believe in just consequences. However, we are often conflicted when someone else’s judgment contradicts our own view of what exact form justice should take.
Note that I did not argue that the need for justice was the only motive for those interested or involved. Other motives are most certainly in play…
For some, to avenge an eye for an eye… the motive to get even.
For others, to be on camera… the motive to be noticed.
For still more, to make political strides… on the right…. on the left. Both.
For more still, to be personally satisfied… to fight for something greater than self, to find a purpose bigger than you and me, as that can be satisfying indeed.
And for still others — again on the right, left, or somewhere in between — it is not so much about fighting for justice or injustice, but rather, about responding to a perceived prejudice. Don’t let me act as if prejudice isn’t alive and well on planet Earth. I would only add that there exists prejudice on all sides of the equation. In those who fight for… and in those who fight against.
The only way we can react wisely to all situations when we disagree with the judgment — be that with the healthcare law, George Zimmerman, or simply any messy dispute in our daily lives — is to be humble first.
To be humble first. To embrace humility.
Did I mention we aren’t good at that?