Hey All,
I recently started watching The Shield. Apparently, in 2003 this was the show to watch and I can see why. It’s got a morally ambiguous main character in morally ambiguous situations that the main character reacts to in morally ambiguous ways. If Tony Soprano had a badge he’d be Vic Mackey. The scene that has stuck with me most is the one where a woman from the neighborhood walks into the police station and demands to be heard:
Glenda: I need someone to listen to me.
Dutch: I'm busy at the moment, but maybe one of the uniforms--
Glenda: I said I need someone to listen to me!
Dutch: ...Okay. Did you want to report a crime?
Glenda: I've lost track of all the crimes.
Dutch: I don't underst--
Glenda: I've lived in this neighborhood all my life keeping my complaints to myself. But no more. My apartment has been broken into seven time in the last four years. SEVEN TIMES! And you never catch anyone! You have got graffiti and cuss words on every single wall that you see. I've got needles on my sidewalk, beer cans on my lawn, and I stopped ducking at the sound of gunshots years ago...How does this make sense? I see that yellow police tape everywhere that I go. And it's all sirens and helicopters and search lights... You got mothers killing their children, children killing strangers, and maniacs flying airplanes into buildings -- and I just want life to go back to the way it should have been! [Pause] What are you doing to make us feel safe?
What sticks with me and what I’ve been mulling over is Glenda’s question to the police: “What are you doing to make us feel safe?” My reaction to this scene was “Why are you going to the cops or any government institution in order to feel safe?” She has apparently witnessed the lack of ability the cops have in cleaning up the streets and yet she continues to turn to them. I suppose my question is why do we, like Glenda , turn to institutions that have shown time and time again that they are not able to, willing to, or interested in, focusing on our safety and well being. What makes us think that the government is willing or able to make us feel safe? What lengths would the government have to go to ensure that warm fuzzy feeling of safety? Is feeling safe worth the cost of a government providing it for us?
10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.” -1 Samuel 8:10-18
If we want to sleep peaceably in our beds at night maybe we should stop outsourcing our peace of mind to rough men willing to do violence on our behalf. Perhaps our ability to feel safe should be an inside job.
Frankly, I’m not even sure that feeling safe is something that I should be desirous of at all. After all I’m trying to follow an individual who told his followers, “A servant is not greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.” That doesn’t sound like a guarantee for safety and neither does this:
Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. –Luke 12.51-53
Those aren’t exactly words that imply that we should pursue a careful timid life. I’m not advocating a cavalier approach to life that throws caution to the wind at all. I’m going to continue to look both ways before crossing a street. I’m just wondering how we got it in our heads that feeling safe should be a top priority.
Maybe instead of striving to feeling safe we should strive to accept the world as it is right now. Now to be clear, accepting something does not mean approving of, or liking something. I can accept that Jeffery Dahmer had an eating disorder. That doesn’t mean I approve of it and it doesn’t mean I like it. The question is can we acknowledge that at any given moment something decidedly unsafe may happen, accept it, and live our lives in light of this? The world is chock full of unsafe situations, people, and objects and we are powerless over 99% percent of them all. That 1% we do have power over is how we react to this precarious reality. Do we react by making an institution the linchpin of our serenity like Glenda? Or do we accept it, keep our heads on a swivel, and try to react out of love instead of fear?
Have a good one,
Carl
No comments:
Post a Comment