Thoughts about a friend and her husband

 

I had lunch with a friend the other day, and noticed that she may be a little divorced from an objective reality.  A society needs objective rules to function, even if it means that some actions automatically give the wrong person the benefit of the doubt in legal issues.

My friend has been married for over 25 years.  She has been with this man through thick and thin.  One of the trouble spots in their relationship was when he was stopped by a cop and charged with a DWI (Driving While Intoxicated).  This caused him to lose his license for 3 years, and for my friend to drive him to and from work, all while going to work herself.  At that time, she told me that she'd divorce him if he ever was stopped for DWI again.  (Most of their property is in her name alone.)  She wasn't going to judge him - if he was out drinking and needed a ride, she'd pick him up - no questions asked.

Normally, when someone gets his/her license back and that person stays clean, there is no problem.  Things go back to a new normal, and the person has learned from his/her error.  (Or, that's the way things aught to be.)  Yet, there are some lingering consequences to a DWI that most Americans don't bump into until they travel to foreign lands....

Cruising has become my main way of recharging my batteries.  This friend would love to go on an Alaskan cruise with her husband.  But there is one problem - his DWI.  Canada considers a DWI to be a felony, and will not (in general) let Americans even travel through their country if they have a DWI. So, how does this affect my friend and her husband?  As I mentioned to her, her husband would have to apply for an exemption in advance of cruising through Canada,  For most people, this would not be a problem.  They recognize that laws are laws, and each nation has a right to set its own standards for how people are expected to behave and who is admitted to that country or not. . 

Most people consider that DWI and DUI (Driving Under the Influence) standards have to be objectively applied.  If a person drives while over the blood alcohol limit, he/she is considered to cause an accident if one occurs.  (The accident would not have occurred had the DWI driver not been on the road.)  My friend objects to this, as she claims that her husband drives safely - even after a few drinks. 

Unfortunately, my friend will not be able to take the Alaskan cruise that she and her husband would like to go on.  He would refuse to apply for an exemption to be able to travel through Canada.  She supports him, as she believes that the objective standard noted above shouldn't apply to someone like her husband.  Sadly, their pride gets in the way of reality - sometimes, one has to admit that one has been wrong, in order to overcome the penalties of doing wrong.

Faith vs. Cults

 

A little while ago, I had a conversation with a person who effectively said that religion itself was a root of evil, as it is used to control people and to do what is not in the interest of humanity.  I countered that all 3 major western faiths teach the same thing.  Then I followed that there is difference between having faith and being in a cult.  

I don't see that having a religious faith is bad, especially when a person questions and tests that faith every day.  One of the tenets of my faith is to treat others as I would have them treat me under the same circumstances.  Given that simple code of behavior, I often fall short of my ideal.  I am not perfect, so I have to accept imperfections in others. No one person has "THE" answer to life.  My faith tells me that I have "AN" answer to life. I question both my answer and people who claim to have their answers every day, so that I can improve my answer. This allows me to "live and let live" as long as that other person doesn't impinge on my life.

Contrast the above with the beliefs of a cult.  People blindly follow the directions of their leaders, not questioning whether those directions go against the official tenets of their belief structure.  The ultra orthodox in every religion tend to use extreme rules to control people, to keep them from even forming the questions that would set them on the path to unique personal faiths.  In short, this is tyranny hiding behind the label of religious freedom.

Look at the first statement in the image above: The Leader is Always Right.  Do Trump's followers ever say he is wrong about anything?  I haven't heard any of them say anything like this.  Next, look at the lack of criticism of the leader.  Isn't it amazing that GOP loyalists never question Trump's statements even when they are provable lies?  What about justification?  As much as I didn't like Hillary Clinton, I never could justify putting her, or any in the Democratic party in jail for opposing the GOP.  I could go on and on through the list, fleshing things out.  But the most important thing, as with many ultra orthodox religious followers is that they can't see themselves as part of a cult.  They see themselves as possessing the only "truth".  Everything else is a lie that must be stamped out.

Right now, we have an important choice to be made in November: Do we want to surrender our freedoms to a minority cult?  Or, do we want to preserve our freedoms, and live according to our individual faiths?  Hopefully, we will make the right choice in a few months....

Sometimes, I don't have much to say. Sometimes, I have a lot.

 

Lately, I have been thinking of politics much more than usual. Given that Trump is going Senile and no one is standing in his way to get the GOP nomination, I'm a little concerned about what would happen if he has control over the "Football" again.

The former president is a narcissist who needs to be loved by everyone with whom he comes into contact. He has no loyalty to friends and family, nor does he have any loyalty to the country.  But he has a following of lemming like supporters.  This afternoon, while I was driving home, I stopped into a pizzeria. Sitting down at a table was the owner, a man who wore a MAGA baseball cap.  There was no way that I wanted to have a political discussion with this person.  So I took my pizza and walked to a table in the back to eat it.

Of course, RQS can say that I am a motor mouth.  And she'd be right.  I can go on for hours about some subjects, and have done so often.  But this time, I knew enough to keep my mouth shut and walk away.  I only wonder if this person really understood that he was getting conned by a master con man.