Nobody Else's Business

Harry T. Cook

By Harry T. Cook

4/4/14

"Mind your own business" is one of the wiser admonitions good parents are wont to give their children. My mother made it abundantly clear to hers that each of us had plenty of business of our own to manage, never mind meddling in someone else's affairs.

On the occasions down the years when I trespassed upon another's business, I learned the hard way why that maternal counsel was so very sound. No one likes a buttinsky. Most people have a hard time tolerating a person who claims to know better than oneself what he or she should or should not do -- especially in matters that are highly personal.

If I were a single, unattached adult not certifiably psychotic, it would be entirely up to me if I wished to wed another unattached adult likewise of sound mind whether it were a person of the same or opposite sex. It would not be the business of any government entity to interfere with my choice and his or her acceptance of my proposal.

Yet such a personal matter is on its way to the United States Supreme Court for adjudication, thanks in great part to the attorney general of Michigan. He is defending the dubious right of the state's voters who in 2004 adopted a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, thereby erecting a discriminatory barrier that prevents gay and lesbian citizens from enjoying the fullness of married life.

What, other than the harangues of Catholic prelates and evangelical fundamentalist preachers, possessed 2,698,077 Michigan voters to approve that amendment while 1,904,319 of them decided, in effect, that my mother was right about not minding somebody else's business?

What if the amendment had provided that marriage must be contracted only between persons who are the same height or weight, or only between those with the same hair coloring or facial features? If such a proposal had been adopted by 2,698,077 buttinskys, would that in itself have made it right? The answer is obviously, "No." Apply the same question to the anti-gay marriage amendment, and the answer is the same.

Love and marriage are intensely personal matters. Where is the smaller-government, don't-tread-on-me lobby on this issue?

Another personal matter is a woman's reproductive process and the organs that make it possible. Talk about minding other people's business! One state legislature after another of late has been making itself busy crafting ways to deny women the basic right to control their own bodies. A one-time parishioner of mine -- a holy woman if ever there was one -- sported a bumper sticker on her car that read: "AGAINST ABORTION? DON'T HAVE ONE."

If a person with two ears wishes to listen to the Rolling Stones instead of Beethoven, who would dare try to prevent him from hearing either with those organs? If an adult prefers to view X-rated movies rather than a production of "Richard III," who in his right mind would go to court or sponsor a referendum to remove that choice and require him instead to attend the nearest Wednesday night prayer meeting? The eyes of the adult in question are his organs. Leave him be.

If I wish to ingest roasted vegetables instead of roast beef, who will dare to take my digestive organs hostage to the latter? If, heaven forefend, I wish to breathe tobacco smoke into my lungs, who is to stop me and to say that it is not my right to use those organs in that way? If I wish to imbibe several dry martinis in the privacy of my own home and not thereafter operate a motor vehicle on a public thoroughfare or otherwise become a nuisance to others, who would dare to say I could not? Did we not learn the lessons of Prohibition?

All these are matters of personal choice and decision. They are exclusively the business of individuals who should not have to brook interference from government -- even in the form of public referenda on private behavior -- on matters that involve one's body, one's sexual preference, one's preferences for hearing, viewing, ingesting or imbibing.

It is the public's business when someone drives drunk, uses the highways as if they were race tracks, brandishes lethal weapons in public places and otherwise engages in behavior that endangers others. Let the various levels of government make themselves useful in regulating such conduct.

If Harry and Sally can wed, then Sally and Jill or Charlie and Ted should be able to wed. If Sally is raped by a masked intruder and becomes pregnant, there can be no question that if she chooses to terminate a pregnancy caused by that rape, she should have access to such treatment in an accredited hospital with no questions asked. Certain matters are nobody else's business.

Where the marriage controversy is concerned, it recently occurred to me in an unaccustomed moment of charity that part of the stubborn opposition to same-sex couples marrying may arise from subconscious anxiety that such unions may represent the beginning of the end of human sexual reproduction and thus the beginning of the end itself. Maybe those who oppose abortion or even birth control unknowingly harbor those same fears. Just wondering.

Readers Write

Essay 3/28/14: Enlightenment Principles Still the Best Bet

CORRECTION: In the essay posted on March 28, 2014, the word "populace" was misspelled.

Brian McHugh, Silver City, NM:

I have lived in the USA for 47 years. I am a naturalized citizen. Once when re-entering the country and asked my "citizenship, and saying "US", was told by the immigration person that I "wasn't really American, having been born in Canada." My first impression, arriving in New York City from Toronto, was the appalling stereotypical racist roles of porters etc. at the train station. The racist component of this society hasn't changed; I still cringe several times a day at the way it is manifested. Racism, along with "manifest destiny," a culture and economy based on militarism, the oppression and inferiorization of women (underpinned by religion, as President Carter recently confirmed), the militarization of the police, the destruction of democracy by the wildly rich, the insanity that passes for "Christianity" in much of American religiosity, the blatant discrimination against gay folk and so many others, along with an hundred others issues, all of which make not only me but I think this whole country emotionally and psychologically sick, have convinced me that, if I am not to die of the incipient hate and vitriol that pervades American society, my husband and I must leave. (He was born here, and feels as I do.) My instinct tells me that America is headed for destruction ... and, like any addict, it will not "recover" until it hits bottom. My hope is that it will be quick, and America can begin the process of healing. So sad.

Wilma Burgess, Shaker Heights, OH:

"Enlightenment" has become a dirty word in our tired culture. People think it's elitist. Thinking takes the hindmost. Ignorance rules the day. You are right in your assessment.

Tracey Morgan, Southfield, MI:

Fine piece on "Enlightenment Principles." Fortunately, they dominated the intellectualism of our founders and gave us the Constitution being savaged today by five of the current Supremes, all Catholics. But we still have something left to save. And we should remember that Nazi political success was not only achieved by the lies believed by a (willfully?) ignorant populace. The fury of resentment rendered them believable.

Richard Olson, Herington, KN:
No small part of the awareness problem you discuss -- in fact an enormous part -- was Congress ending the Fairness in Broadcasting (FiB) doctrine during the Reagan administration. It was impossible for broadcast media to bombast the airwaves with ideology 24/7 until that occurred. A lot of viewers/listeners would not be so indoctrinated as presently if each segment of one side was countered by a matching time segment of another; 25% or so of the population is ideological, and Fairness has questionable impact on that group. The rest fall into less rigid categories, and those in these groups would be less susceptible to extreme & dishonest broadcast dogma. Ownership of stations would only host extremist shows if they prove more successful than other options, e.g. NPR style multiple guest-viewpoint programming, and I think if FiB returned people would in time tune mostly into the latter. A second change in broadcasting since the FiB era is the business model of media. There are more corporate owned outlets, and thus fewer family-owned newspaper/radio/TVbusinesses. Some family businesses began as journalism entities as well as for-profit enterprise. Corporate media seems to me to exist for profit first, second, third ... with quality information perhaps on the list very far down, or perhaps not on the list at all. I only watch the News Hour if I watch TV news at all, and that is hardly ever. The rest of national news programming started to resemble mediocre local news broadcasts decades ago, at best, or the Jerry Springer show at worst. That would be you, Fox "news."

Dewey Barton, New Smyrna Beach, FL:
Excellent essay. The lack of enlightenment thinking is discouraging!

Blayney Colmore, La Jolla, CA:
You may be tilting at very enduring windmills. Though he was hardly the first, David Packard wrote more than a generation ago about how effective it is to appeal to what lies beneath consciousness. Reminds me of what Lawton Chiles said when he was running for a second term for governor of Florida. Well-known as a liberal on race by Florida standards, he was challenged by a man who said, "Governor, you're a Southerner; you trying to tell us you're not prejudiced?" "Oh no," he replied, "I'm shot full of prejudice, but I try not to let that run my life." The extent to which we're aware of what lies beneath consciousness is the extent to which we may free of having it in charge of us. My experience, personally and watching others, is that's a very tall order. The uneasiness about the Enlightenment ought not be whether rational thought is a good thing, but the extent to which it is a match for what is beneath consciousness, and often thus non, or even, irrational.

Mari Bonomi, Kilmarnock, CA:

As always, a brilliant essay. Keep preaching, good sir. We secular humanists (notice no capital letters there!) need to have voices speak to us from the pulpit as well.

Rusty Hancock, Madison Heights, MI:

I came to the conclusion quite awhile ago that the major dichotomy in current politics is the faith based vs. fact based factions. The latter proclaims "You can have your own opinion but not your own facts" and the former splutters "Why not? I simply refuse to acknowledge them as facts." And we're off to the races. The only room for compromise I can see is that people who claim their own special revelation must learn that it is only for them, and not for the entire world, unless they can convince that world to agree with them. And even then, they must leave room for the special personal revelations of other people. There, of course, is where they are unable to follow you, and rational discourse turns into spluttering and vituperation. I don't know what the answer is. I'd say it lies with the Constitution, except that they've started pre-empting that too. I really think a lot of these people believe that Moses or Jesus or somebody like that dictated the Constitution to George Washington in 1776. So I've largely given up, and these days spend less time watching politics and more time watching Law and Order, CSI, and Bones reruns. They solve their cases in an hour and justice usually is done, which is a hell of a lot more than you can claim for anything happening in contemporary politics.

Karl Kilpatrick, Winchester, MA:

Your essay re the Enlightenment makes so much sense. The idea that reason demands evidence before accepting a proposition seems to me to be a basic element of democracy. As it is, we are asked to believe whatever politicians say -- especially when they say it loudly and often. And, yes, I too am "living in Vermont."

Carla Randolph, Santa Monica, CA:

Not a good thing you were reporting on in your essay on Enlightenment principles. Of course, as you said they are the best bet yet. But employing them is considered hard work. I think the general American likes the rewards of hard work without performing it.

Fred Fenton, Concord, CA:

Thank you for endorsing Enlightenment principles that should need no defense from educated people. I attended Episcopal Theological School (now Episcopal Divinity School), one of the most liberal seminaries in the Episcopal Church and the first to accept higher criticism, yet the faculty taught as if the Enlightenment had never occurred. The myths of Christianity were given reasoned defense but never put to the test of "objective data to support whatever hypothesis is presented." I must disagree with Doctorow's dictum that"today it is only children who continue to believe that stories are, by the fact of their being told, true. Children and fundamentalists." You will hear biblical stories as if they were true in almost any Episcopal church today and received as such by the congregation." [Mr. Fenton is a retired Episcopal priest.]

Harry Dyck, Elkhart, IN:

You are a gift to the reader, and an educator par excellence. I read [the essay "Enlightenment Principles Still the Best Bet"] and determined almost immediately that it warranted a broader audience so I am sending same to others who will ponder and appropriate your insights.

Albert Fransden, Albuquerque, NM:

Just trying it here for a couple of months, but we don't miss your essays. They give us a boost every Friday morning. Yes, and "enlightenment," too. Thanks for it all.

What do you think?

I'd like to hear from you. E-mail your comments to me at revharrytcook@aol.com.

Click here to read previously published articles.