A Soft-Heart Look Behind Religion and Human Rights "We won't let go of hearts."

And yes...I promised to continue the "Soft-Heart" discussion today. Before I read Kimberly T's comment on yesterday's piece, I had a different direction in mind. However, her comments were so compelling that it would be a mistake not to pick up some of the very interesting points she raised. It seems Kimberly read yesterday's piece and correctly picked up in the last sentence that some on the Left of the political spectrum might twist the right to privacy that houses the abortion debate, and find an ethical flip-side to the Right's claim that under the current law the unborn is without protection, hence, life is not respected. The Left's flip-side, of course, would be that life is protected under the current law with, perhaps, a rather specious addendum: "the unborn to the extent possible" without putting mother's life at great risk. Here, it sounds like, the Left wants to protect the living, and the Right, the unborn. Well, I am absolutely certain the Right is not saying "To hell with the living," and I am equally sure the Left is not saying, "To hell with the unborn." Neither extreme is consistent with sound reason. But as Kimberly T senses, I also sense that someone is saying, "To hell with the living." Like a canine detective, I want to sniff out the culprit because something smells. Someone is saying, "To hell with the living." Do we have to go through every bit of evidence we know of to show that there has been an appalling lack of respect for the living?

When I think about this, I don't think of it as just a question that belongs to a pluralistic society in which groups struggle for scarce resources. Don't get me wrong, I go there! When it's time I extend the analysis to those quarters, but first, I think the problem surfaces and puts down roots in interpersonal relationships and interactions. Those addicted to macro analyses may not like my taking it to this level. The half-trained in Aristotelian thought might say they see something of "infinite regress" in my approach. Whatever the case, it is abundantly clear that abuse in families owes its existence to the lack of respect and caring for the living. Friendships taken for granted and frustrated in some of the most unbelievable ways.

Then, you have the "almighty dollar" that shows up on the scene. Well, folks lose their minds under its power. Some businesses forget that we are the world and altogether share the public space; the trust factor is vacuumed out and there is a giant sucking sound, "Swoosh!" There goes Kimberly T's core values of respecting life, compassion, self-reflection etc. Since yesterday, I have employed the noun-phrase "soft-heart view" as a naming of the view, not a description of it. Indeed, this takes the idea of a "soft-heart" to the very essence of the view; it makes it the view itself. How best can one talk about a view that is so complete in itself, so pure, and purely embraced not by the rich or poor, but the willing? We know that where the core-values are sucked out so violently, this view does not exist. Well, that we know; I guess as hope is entrenched in our bosoms and it is something we are not willing to part with, we ask, when will businesses that seem to care so little pick up the soft-heart view, and perhaps, get a peek of what lies behind the curtain of faith and the treasures of human rights? We are asking this in the 21st century. A great American we all love asked in the 20th century: "When will wounded justice be lifted from the this dust of shame to reign supreme among the children of men?"


During tomorrow's forum, we'll find the soft hearts themselves and get a sneak preview behind the curtains of faith in various traditions. My deepest thanks for visiting and always remember, change begins with you!!!