The unimaginable shooting of Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson on January 8, 2011 and the violent demise of Osama bin Laden on the opposite side of the spectrum May 1, 2011 that was deemed appropriate by many brings to mind the ultimate consequence that may be taken on by anyone who deems themselves an activist or who puts themselves out in public service. Are you willing to die in the line of public service?
It is important to note after such violence whether deemed appropriate action or not that one must really be mindful of the ideals they choose to represent. If it means facing the loaded end of a gun and possibly death, it is not worth it unless one knows to their core that they are on the right side of an issue.
How many passionate activists truly think this question through? It is easy in the heat of the moment to make claims and accusations. However for these life changing and possibly life threating issues it is important to take at least a moment to consider where ideas come from and how an activist comes to understand ideals as truths? It is even more essential to take this type of inventory when ideals condone or even encourage the death and destruction of other human beings. It is important to seek answers to the question ” Is this really the best way to deal with the problem at hand?”
Humanity is coming upon a crossroads. As global citizens that are forced to share a planet, some forced to share smaller spaces such as a town, a state, or a country. As such, how do people share limited space while holding ideals that are in such direct and passionate conflict? Some feel that in order for their particular way of life to be preserved they must be in complete control and refuse to allow anyone with a different world perspective to survive. It’s an all or nothing mentality, a person is either “one of us” or not which deems them no longer able to live. Many use a claim to Divine favoritism, or permissive will of God as exclusive right to make such God like decisions.
This becomes more problematic as humans come to an uncompromising stance on issues regarding social, fiscal, religious, gender and sexual expression. Those who serve the public and activists find themselves in a dangerous position as referees and players in the middle of the dangerous political game played by these diverse groups. Must there be winners and losers? Must people truly die for these differences? Is that the only way?
Freedom is something many hold dear. They want personal Freedom to have absolute expression of who they are however where has the notion come from that this means taking away the Freedom of expression from others in order to produce absolute personal comfort? Where does it say that all must conform to a pre-packaged template of life in order to be Free? What is a way that will allow people their own expression of life without demeaning or taking Freedoms away from those with different views regarding important and personal issues ? Who gets to decide? Who is to deny another? How do we justify death as the remedy to non-compliance?
Are you willing to die in service to your community? Must that sacrifice truly be asked of a public servant in a representative Democracy? It seems to be the question lately and one we must answer as a community, as humanity. When you know what you are willing to die for you know who you truly are and once you know that, how can you share a sometimes small planet with those of opposing beliefs?