Fracture

Yesterday, a friend arrived for a visit. We spent the afternoon talking and wondering whether the rain would stop. When it did, we went to dinner at a lakeside restaurant; beautiful view, good service, tolerable but disappointing meal (for me). My “rare” steak was on the overcooked side of medium. But I did not complain, because I was in no mood to had the kitchen staff start over. Oh, well. After dinner, we talked some more and listened to our respective musical favorites. I stayed up after my friend went to bed, watching another couple of episodes of Arrested Development. The clock had just struck 2:00 a.m. when I got in bed. I got up at 5:00 a.m. I may regret getting a very brief three hours of sleep. I’m already nodding at it’s only 6:40. I may try to get another hour or three of sleep before my friend wakes up.

Today, we’ll go into Hot Springs for a look around. We’ll wear masks. I suspect many (perhaps most?) on the street will not. Ach!

+++

A very unfortunate brouhaha is underway within my church. As we begin to seriously discuss when it might be possible to reopen in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, the wife (and several friends and supporters and admirers) of a man who recently died are now insisting that his memorial service be held in the church sanctuary. While the time may be right to safely do so, the arguments promoting the memorial service in the church are revealing the gross absence of “democracy” in the institution. I actually have heard comments suggesting that “[He] is not just another member; he is largely responsible for where we are today and we simply must honor him by opening up the church for his memorial.” The same comments have been followed by acknowledgement that the privilege would not be granted to someone with a “lesser” contribution to the church’s development and evolution.

It’s not the question of whether to allow the memorial to go on inside the church that disturbs me—that question deserves discussion and debate and decision. What disturbs me is the open assertion that “we’re not all really equal…some are more equal than others.” I would not have considered for even a moment asking for or insisting on a memorial service for my wife in the church. Even though her death took place before the vaccine was available, I would never have suggested that her death might merit special consideration for any reason. In fact, I decided shortly after she died that, if I organize a memorial service, it will be more of a “celebration of life” and will be held when we can comfortably return to the church. Now, though, the blatant attitude that “he deserves special treatment because…” is causing me to question whether the fundamental values the church claims to hold are, in fact, smoke and mirrors. I do not for a moment deny the enormous importance the man had on the church; his contributions merit long, loud, and perpetual recognitions and acknowledgement. But, in my mind, the very public suggestions or implications that he was more “important” than my wife makes me question the validity of the church and, certainly, my involvement in it. It appears from my vantage point that consideration is being given purely on the basis of who is doing the “asking” and “demanding.” Depending on how the discussions play out, I may decide not to try church after this experience; “won’t get fooled again.”  And that’s too bad, because I’ve been so utterly taken by the church and its congregation. Most of the people where I live who I call friends came to me through the church. What an unfortunate problem.

My position probably would be/will be attacked as having a basis in my grief over my wife’s death. Whether such attacks materialize, my grief has nothing to do with my position. In many respects, the optics may be almost as important to many people as the philosophy behind it. But my stance is rooted firmly in philosophy. And institutional democracy.

+++

Just over a year ago, my wife and I discussed the potential outcome of the COVID-19 pandemic. We agreed it was entirely possible the virus could be the beginning of the end of humankind. And despite the progress science and medicine have made during the course of the last year, I still believe that possibility exists. While I think science and medicine have the capability of stalling the spread of the scourge and minimizing its effects on humanity, several realities argue against a “win” against the pandemic: politics; stubbornness; stupidity; and greed conspire against humans’ success in this battle. I am not suggesting the health challenges of the virus will entirely rid the streets of people; only that our collective unwillingness to treat COVID-19 as a truly existential threat might turn it into exactly that.

Many U.S. states’ politicians today treat COVID-19 as having been “conquered.” Consequently, they are not only allowing, but encouraging, residents to return to “normal” times without masks, without adequate personal distance, and a return to the days when handwashing was considered an annoying option. In spite of epidemiologists’ and others medical professionals; warnings, large swaths of the population (both domestic and abroad) seem intent on refusing to behave rationally; they value their “right” to expose themselves and their fellow citizens to COVID-19 far more than they value human life—even their own. Far too many among us enthusiastically embrace absurd conspiracy theories that suggest the virus is controlled by a cabal of dangerous and devious people whose purpose in exercising control over it is purely political, based in greed. Growing insistence that businesses be given free rein to operate without COVID-19 restrictions adds to the dangers we face.

But even in the face of these exceptional challenges, I think we have the capacity to overcome the virus from the perspective of science and medicine.  Our capacity to control, though, does not extend to repairing tears in the social fabric that have been showing over the last year. And while we might be able to conquer the challenges to our health that COVID-19 poses, I do not believe we have the wherewithal to recover from catastrophic economic ruin, a collapsed and shattered food distribution system, and the dozens of other social and economic fractures that could accompany the ongoing onslaught of COVID-19.

These issues suggest chicken and egg dilemmas. Which comes first: beating COVID-19 or beating its effects on society so we can turn our attention to eliminating the virus? In my view, those who would choose to “repair” society and its economies before ridding us of the virus are responsible for the decay of humans’ grip on the planet. Driven by skepticism and greed, those people exemplify stubbornness and stupidity. When, and if, they come to realize that society cannot continue to function without the fuel humans provide, it will be too late. By then, even a miracle “cure” for the virus will be insufficient for recovery. The slide into oblivion will have begun; it will simply accelerate from there. A decade, maybe two, will be more than ample time to finish us. Of course, I could be wrong. I hope I am. But I’m afraid I’m not.

+++