May 17, 2012

The Evolution or Devolution of Society Based on Progressive or Conservative Values

Do humans evolve over time? Not in the “over eons of time” sense, but from birth to death? Do we learn and grow as we begin to understand ourselves and others better, or do we learn just enough to survive and then live out our days by instinct or default like the eagles pictured here? Consider this: When a baby is born he requires assistance with everything. A caregiver must feed, bathe, change, and comfort him. As the months pass the baby becomes more independent. They can eventually hold their own head up, roll over by themselves, sit up, crawl and then walk. Then they begin to identify with people and objects. They become possessive over a parent, a toy or anything else that brings them comfort or security.

Then they figure out the rules for staying safe, like looking both ways before crossing the street or not putting their hand on a hot stove. Over time they learn to read and write, do simple math, make basic assumptions about the world around them, and if allowed to, they develop critical thinking skills for interpreting the concepts and theories presented to them. Eventually, they will gain the ability to examine those ideas and come to their own conclusions whether or not they believe them. Without the freedom to use this kind of critical thinking, they may accept ideas as complete fact and truth that are, in reality, only theories, thereby halting their critical thinking skills.

To think that the universe is set in stone and the rules fixed and unchangeable, is fool hearty. Of course there are certain universal laws which are constant, like gravity. But to adopt an unprovable theory as fact, and hold to that theory regardless of evidence to the contrary, results in devolution. In order to grow and evolve as humans we must be willing to examine and explore ideas that may be outside our comfort zone. We must allow ourselves the latitude to consider that what we have been taught is not the whole story, and that our spiritual, mental and physical evolution requires that we think new thoughts, even if it means letting go of old ones. If Galileo, Copernicus, Madam Curie, Einstein, Mother Theresa, Siddhartha (the first Buddha), and numerous other famous way-showers throughout history had not plowed through preconceived notions (which others believed were set in stone) to find the bigger picture, we humans would have a far different world view.

One definition of evolve is:

“develop gradually: to develop something gradually, often into something more complex or advanced, or undergo such development.”

To evolve means to gain a better and more efficient understanding of ourselves in relationship to others and our world. Just as a three-year-old cannot be allowed to make their own choices about crossing a street, that same child will evolve into a person who can do that very thing without help. Our universe is more complex than the best and brightest minds on the planet can begin to comprehend, so why would anyone consider that what they’ve been taught is the ultimate truth based on a feeling, and without an ounce of questioning?

There are those who understand this all too well and use it for their own personal gain. They know that the unquestioning mind is impressionable and if they can make people simply feel good about something, they can mold them into good little soldiers to peddle their own bigger agenda; which in some cases is to gain world control for profit.

These unscrupulous profiteers are not really interested in personal liberty, although that’s what some peddle their agenda as. In reality, their anti-government, pro-religion stances do nothing more than create inequity among the populace, putting the bulk of the power in the hands of those who will only use that power to gain more profit for themselves while the masses suffer. Using emotional coercion to create fear and make people believe that progressive ideas will be the downfall of society, keeps people stuck in their old paradigms where it’s almost impossible to evolve in understanding.

Liberal Ideas include:

1. Caring for the health of the planet and her people through environmental laws,

2. Promoting equality by not denying equal rights to any minority group of law abiding tax paying citizens

3. Allowing the government to care for it’s citizens through social programs such as universal health care

4. Allowing families to make personal decisions about contraception and abortion without government intervention

These very ideas are being demonized by many conservatives as stepping stones to Socialism or Communism. What, I ask, is the alternative?

As Rachel Maddow, a noted Liberal commentator on MSNBC, helped demonstrate on her show (video excerpt below) our country is slowly drifting to the right.  Since Barack Obama became president, that drift has not been slow, but rather Republican law makers have been expeditiously usurping individual rights and imposing their own rigid ideology by turning their own personal views regarding contraception, abortion, gay marriage, immigration, etc., into law.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Those who fight against most progressive ideas and peddle instead a narrow and limited view claiming “This is how things are supposed to be,” really have no interest in the quality evolution of our society. They twist ideas and confuse those who listen with threats of a vengeful god with power to destroy the wicked who don’t follow the narrow path. When in reality, living by these narrow and rigid beliefs is more likely the very thing that would result in our society failing.

History has taught us that the natural evolution of an enlightened society requires that we be more accepting of our differences, more loving and compassionate to others, and more tolerant of those with whom we disagree.

Those who spread fear and promote exclusionary ideas and would take rights and liberties away from others because of some rigid ideology, in reality only care about their own personal liberty and those who think like them. They have no interest in sharing the planet with anyone who disagrees with them and they are willing to promote ideas that will aid in the dumbing down of America (like eliminating the Department of Education and making higher learning impossible for anyone but the rich). Their ideas are also leading to the extinction of anyone who does not march in lock-step with those rigid ideologies because those who cannot afford healthcare will just be allowed to die. (which is already a very real occurrence here in the U.S.)

The conservative agenda is far more sinister than the liberal agenda and has the potential to not only wreak havoc on our planet, but will prove to keep the majority of humanity in darkness and ignorance, while the rich and powerful tactically control the world and it’s economy.

Conservative by definition means:

“reluctant to accept change: in favor of preserving the status quo and traditional values and customs, and against abrupt change.”

Do some people really believe that at some point in life we have learned everything there is to know and we no longer need to evolve?

Liberal/progressive means:

“progressive politically or socially: favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual.”

Is it any wonder that there are more conservatives who evolve into liberal thinking, than liberal thinkers who devolve to conservatism?

It’s time to wake up to the simple equation for true and compassionate evolutionary growth: Questioning + Education + Common Sense + Open Mindedness = A better world for most rather than a better world for only the wealthiest among us.

Sheri Lawson

Sheri is the author of The Spell of Religion and the Battle Over Gay Marriage. She and her husband, Steve, have a keen interest in spirituality and metaphysics. As she longed for a deeper understanding of the pathway to God, one that taught more than the simple concept “Be good in this life and you will be rewarded in the next,” Sheri was drawn to the metaphysical world, a world untainted by the personal agendas of man through dogma.

More Posts - Website

Auto-Generated Related Posts (Use the Search for Better Results)

  • http://www.goddiscussion.com admin

    At one time, I considered myself to be a conservative — but with today's definitions and religious fundamentalism associated with conservatism, I'm now a liberal, I guess. The conservative nowadays shuns higher education, thinks the earth is 6,000 years old and can be polluted at will, seems to love war and torture, and is not the "big tent" that it claimed it used to be.

    Maybe I'm evolving … or else the definition of what it is to be conservative is devolving.

    Deborah

  • http://thejoyfulmystic.blogspot.com Sheri Lawson

    Well, Deborah, I think it's a little of both. You are definitely evolving, but the definition of what it means to be conservative is definitely devolving on a monumental scale.

  • Lorian

    Well put, Sheri. Thanks for linking me up.

  • colourmegone

    "and then live out our days by instinct or default like the eagles pictured here?" And what evidence do you have that eagles "simply live out their lives by instinct or default"? This is the opposite of the Pathetic Fallacy and is just as fallacious. It is based on the "black box" model promoted by reductionism which says that only human beings have intelligence and self-awareness because we're the "magic animal". There is evidence of intelligence and self awareness among many species of animal, including birds, elephants and other primates.

  • Keith

    Please learn the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. There is a theory of gravity just as there is a theory of evolution. Theories do not stand in the face of evidence against them they are only given the respect of beng called a theory because of a testable body of evidence in their favor. If you take the trouble to understand the scientific method then you might come to the conclusion that a persons agenda is irrelevant to any true theory. I do understand this concept is hard to grasp without partitioning the ideas of spirituality and metaphysics given the scientific method by definition relates and applies to physics, not metaphysics. If you try however to grasp it from the fact based theory perspective your article would be less easy to dismiss as scientifically illiterate.