7 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/13/05 12:00pm)
It is an understatement to say that Pope John Paul II lived a full life. Indeed, it seemed as if he lived the life of many men. A talented actor and linguist during his college years, he could have become a famous actor or a renowned academic, but instead became a priest.
He was an immensely successful and well-liked pastor and would have been happy to remain in this capacity, but he became a professor of philosophy at the suggestion of his superiors.
His books, "Love and Responsibility" and "The Acting Person," reconciled Catholic and modern thought. This earned him a place, in the eyes of some commentators, as one of the greatest Catholic thinkers of all time.
As pope, he played an important role in the fall of the Soviet Union, and spread his message of love throughout the world through his many voyages, being seen in the process by more people than any man in the history of the world.
Any of these accomplishments would have won him acclaim, but the full depth of what he has done truly staggers the mind. The crowds that attended his funeral were right to chant, "Magnus! Magnus!" (the Great, the Great).
But if people, in the years and decades and centuries to come, reflect fondly on John Paul, I hope they look at more than his human achievements.
John Paul II once said of some of his biographers, who looked primarily at his involvement in politics, that they understood him from the outside, but that he could only by understood from the inside. It is the inside that we are now left to ponder.
John Paul II was first a disciple of Christ, a man who desired only to follow the will of Christ and to let Christ shine through him in all he did. He was, in short, what every Christian should aspire to be. The life of any Christian, and especially that of a pope, should be a reflection of Christ himself.
In an age where so many politicians only care about their image and frequently change or water down their positions to please as many people as possible, he proclaimed the doctrines of the Church. He even defended those that many found unappealing and desired more than anything that everyone might see things as he did.
What's most amazing is that he did this without being harsh or judgmental.
Too often it is the case that Christians, in an effort to be faithful to their beliefs, adopt a condemning attitude towards those with whom they disagree. John Paul exhibited no such hostile attitude.
While at times Christians look down on members of other religions, John Paul showed them all great love. He was the first pope to visit a synagogue, he spoke to a whole stadium of young Muslims and he prayed together with members of countless other religions at The World Day of Prayer for Peace.
In no way did this conflict with his belief in the truth and righteousness of the Catholic Church. He simply did not use this belief as a justification to pass judgment on anyone.
John Paul II was also known for his efforts to reach out to young people. Our generation is often perceived as a hopeless one that has lost its way in an immoral world.
The pope, however, placed great faith in the young and expected them to be leaders in the church and the secular world.
The confidence the pope instilled in them inspired countless young adults to radically change and improve their lives. I've personally met some who have decided to become priests and nuns after hearing the pope speak.
This kind of magnetism might seem like a miracle, but there is no great secret to it. The pope succeeded because of his dedication to principles and his genuine love.
It is this combination of qualities that made him accessible to our generation. The young will not respond to someone who has one but not the other. What is the point of listening to someone who supposedly cares about you, but does not challenge you to do better in life?
Likewise, who wants to listen to someone who tells you to be moral, but at the same time looks down on you?
John Paul avoided these shortcomings. He both loved and challenged the young. For him, the two went together: since he loved them he wanted the best for them and since he thought the best thing for them was to be moral, he did not hesitate to say it.
In addition to reaching out to the young, the pope reflected his Christian values by helping those in need. Christ had great compassion for all people. He healed the sick wherever he went, showing that even the outcasts of society have a great worth because they are people and because God loves them.
He continuously denounced the idea that a person's worth came from what he could do and said again and again that each person had a great dignity that nothing could take away.
John Paul exemplified this virtue by not shunning those around him. Despite his lofty stature and his failing health, he made every effort to be around the people who needed him most.
I once saw a picture of the pope that showed him praying in his private chapel early in the morning.
Away from the adoring crowds, away from the geopolitical decisions, away from the business of everyday life in the Vatican, there he was, on his knees, lost in God.
For me, that picture captures the secrets of his remarkable life. Through prayer he came to know and love Christ, and received the grace to show Christ to others in all he did.
The pope was many things to many people, but to me Pope John Paul II showed, through his love and moral courage, what Jesus Christ would have been like were he to walk this earth again.
(03/30/05 12:00pm)
A Chinese proverb says that having an older person in the home is a treasure. As someone who has had my grandmother live with my family for my entire life, I could not agree more.
Since I was very young, I have learned to appreciate the elderly. While there are many who would agree with me, some sadly do not have such a high estimation of the older members of our society.
This problem stems from the fact that in the West have a tendency to think that economic and material prosperity is all we need to be happy.
If we equate ownership of material things with happiness, we can then conclude that the elderly are happy as long as they are provided for.
Alas, this view ignores the truth that there is more to life than economic prosperity. So many elderly people have all the comforts of life but are unhappy because their families have nearly forgotten them.
I could write a whole column just listing the ways the elderly have been neglected. Many live in terrible poverty without proper access to health care. Many more are actually abused by their own families. Plenty live in nursing homes with unsanitary conditions and uncaring workers.
But even if all of these shortcomings were addressed, there would still be a serious problem. Ours is not a culture that values the aged.
Mother Teresa constantly repeated an experience she had when she visited a nursing home in England. The nursing home was brand-new and state of the art. The occupants had everything they could ever want: beautiful and cleanly living quarters, excellent food and quality health care.
Despite this, none of them smiled. She asked one of the nurses why that was so and the woman responded that they were always like that: every day they waited for a call or a visit from a family member, but no one ever called or came. As a result, they were mostly lonely, sad and depressed.
Human beings need more than our monetary support. We already know this is to be true with children.
Parents who merely provided food and shelter for their children without spending a good amount of time with them and showing them love would be terribly remiss.
However, this is exactly what some in our society have done to the elderly.
This is not a problem without a solution. Many of us have grandparents who are still alive that we can readily visit or call. Some have elderly neighbors in need of companionship.
Those who have some free time could even volunteer at a nursing home.
And we can all try as hard as we can to support our parents as they grow older.
If each one of us changes our attitude toward the elderly, then society's attitude will change as well.
One might wonder why I call for a philosophical approach to change in lieu of institutional reform.
After all, I could just as easily call for laws to help stop elderly abuse, improve nursing homes and fix social security.
These are very noble things and I hope good, able people work hard to accomplish them.
However, while I would love nothing more than to change the flawed institutions of our country, I have no illusions about my current ability to do so.
A column in the school paper will not have reverberations around the world; a negative word from me will not set the pundits in Washington buzzing and make George W. Bush tremble.
But perhaps my sentiments will inspire some small number of people to do something to help the elderly in their own lives.
Then, at least on a small level, change will be affected. In the end, that is all that matters.
(03/02/05 12:00pm)
Strong and clear vision is necessary for leadership. Great leaders are those who state their vision clearly and then execute around it. For President Bush, the spread of democracy throughout the world has been the defining vision of his presidency.
A glance at recent world events proves that Bush's dream is working out extraordinarily well. Afghanistan and Iraq held democratic elections. Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak announced Saturday that he would change the constitution to allow a multi-candidate presidential race for the first time since 1981. There may even be a democratically elected Palestinian state on the horizon. American pressure and responsible action on the part of people in the Middle East has made an outburst of democracy possible.
For many, this comes as a great surprise. After all, how can democracy be spread by force?
It is right to ask this question, since democracy cannot be spread by force but only by the willing involvement of the people in any given country. The democratic impulse that is sweeping the world is not caused by Bush, but by internal movements.
In Ukraine, in Georgia, in Kurgyzstan and in many parts of the Middle East, murmurs of democratization are being heard. Forces greater than any one man, even an American president, are at work here.
If, in the long term, President Bush's actions do in fact help democratize large portions of the Middle East, it will not be because he initiated the process but because he supported and stabilized a process of transformation already underway. The people of Afghanistan and Iraq have embraced democracy and that would not have been possible were it not for U.S. intervention. However, it also would not have been possible had the majority of them not wanted democratic government to begin with.
Still, many criticize Bush, and rightly so, for his idealistic and nearly messianic conception of the spread of democracy. For many Americans, the concept of democracy has taken on nearly religious undertones.
This pseudo-religious view of democracy hinders to a large degree one's ability to see clearly. While spreading democracy is certainly a good thing and we should fully support its growth, at the same time we should seriously consider that even if democracy sweeps the world in ways unimaginable even now, all the world's problems will still not be solved.
Democracy is a good thing insofar as it respects individual freedom. However, freedom in itself does not guarantee a perfect society. Freedom, divorced from responsibility and adherence to the sound moral conduct, can be destructive and lead back to totalitarianism. There have been many brutal authoritarian leaders who were democratically elected and this is a great danger, especially in emerging democracies.
Bush, if he is to be successful in promoting stable democratic governments in the Middle East and elsewhere, must remember this and be willing to persevere in seeing young governments through their difficult moments.
Even more importantly, if permanent and successful democracies are to take root worldwide, the United States must spread the values that underpin successful democracies and not merely a form of government.
The greatness of democracy is rooted in the respect it shows for each individual person, but at times America's actions have not been consistent with these beliefs.
If this spreading of values seems like an imperialistic policy, that is because it is an imperialistic policy, albeit one that is better intentioned than its 19th century European counterpart.
In the 1950s and '60s, when the European imperial structure broke down, few of the new democracies that emerged in Africa and South East Asia survived. Many fell back into dictatorships because the countries were not adequately prepared for democracy.
Democracy needs to be phased in gradually. After so many years of imperial rule, the jump to full democracy was nearly impossible in the third world.
Perhaps it would have been better if the European powers stayed for a few more years (to help rather than to exploit), or if United States used its influence to build up stable democratic governments in the developing world instead of merely using them as pawns against the Soviet Union.
Happily, that scenario is playing itself out now. Bush genuinely wants to do everything in his power to help the spread of democracy. His policy might be imperialistic in nature but it is directed at fostering the growth of democracy. He has no ulterior motives.
This, of course, does not mean that his strategy is perfect, or even that it is ethically correct. There are serious reasons why war in Iraq might have been considered ethically unjustifiable.
Ethical complaints aside, the current U.S. foreign policy is working to a degree because it is tapping into and supporting, both ideologically and materially, a new shift towards democratization in world politics.
This shift is largely unprecedented. In the past, the American government has used other countries as a means to its own political ends, without actually caring for the well-being of their citizens. When we treat counties in this way, it is no surprise that it results in unexpected long-term consequences, as was the case with the emergence of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
It appears now that Bush is making a genuine attempt to safeguard emerging democracies in a way that is not domineering, but rather consistent with their legitimate autonomy and rights as nations.
However, if he strays the path and loses sight of the recognition of these rights, his plan will fail. Democracy spread by undemocratic means simply cannot sustain itself.
(02/23/05 12:00pm)
In recent speeches, Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-N.Y.) adopted a conciliatory attitude toward the pro-life position. "I believe we can all recognize that abortion, in many ways, represents a sad, even tragic, choice to many, many women," she said.
Clinton also said that she respected "those who believe with all their hearts and conscience that there are no circumstances under which any abortion should ever be available." She has even praised organized religion for promoting abstinence among teens, saying that most teens abstain because of religious convictions.
But, pro-lifers may ask, do her words represent a genuine desire to work to limit abortion? Or are they just another manifestation of democratic panic in lieu of the last presidential election, in which many voters said that they voted based on moral issues, with abortion and gay marriage topping the list?
It is very possible to think that she is merely playing politics and changing her rhetoric to reach out to social conservatives in preparation for a 2008 presidential run.
If so, her new approach will do her little good if recent history is any barometer.
In reality, her words are no different from those of John Kerry. Kerry continually affirmed during the debates that he respected pro-lifers and even that he personally opposed abortion as a matter of faith (a step that Clinton has not taken) and was still summarily rejected by pro-life voters because he would not take that belief into the public arena.
Reaching pro-life voters will be very important in coming elections, but if Clinton does run she will have to do better to reach them.
No matter how much a politician respects a voter's position, it will not normally change the way that person votes.
For instance, if George W. Bush had continually said during the last election that he deeply respected a woman's right to choose, he would not have swayed many voters since his record shows that he is strongly committed to combating the availability of abortion and many pro-choicers fear that given the right circumstances he could appoint the Supreme Court justices that will overturn Roe v. Wade.
Such words would seem patronizing to pro-choice voters, and Clinton should realize that in the same way, her new tone could rub pro-lifers the wrong way.
Clinton's new change of heart also falls into a trap that severely hurt Kerry. Kerry was criticized by many for being a "flip-flopper" when he changed his stance or tried to sit on the fence in regard to certain issues to win more votes.
Considering the problems Bush was having with the war, the large number of people who were merely voting against Bush instead of for Kerry and the overall closeness of the election, a stronger democratic candidate could have easily won. If Kerry would have taken a firmer stance on issues like the war, he might have done better.
As it stood, many perceived him as just another politician who would say anything to get elected. Whether one agreed or disagreed with Bush, one could not say he was inconsistent and this played a large part in his victory.
If Clinton wants to run for president, it will be in her best interests to stick to her guns instead of trying to please people who she cannot possibly honestly represent.
I am not going to say that Clinton is merely being self-serving or hypocritical by attempting to show respect and admiration for the pro-life cause. It is an admirable thing to try to understand those who hold an opposing position and I am glad she is doing so.
But, she will not make any headway with pro-life voters unless she backs up her words with actions.
To this point, she has a 100 percent pro-choice voting record and no serious pro-lifer would ever vote for someone with a record like that.
Unless her voting habits change in the coming years, her pro-life rhetoric will sound hollow and will do little to win over conservative and even moderate voters.
Worse still, she may even lose votes if voters at large view her as lacking integrity.
(02/02/05 12:00pm)
Jan. 22 marked the 32nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the United States. Ever since, the moral status of abortion has been one of the most hotly contested political issues in the ation.
I do think, however, that there is some common ground to be found between pro-life and pro-choice advocates.
Even among those who support abortion, there are those who would agree with me that things would be better if fewer abortions were performed. I will now present a way to achieve that goal.
The most intuitive solution is to provide more readily available contraception.
While I understand that this idea is very attractive and seems to make sense, I have to disagree. The only way that I can see reducing the number of abortions in this country is not to increase, but to decrease, the use of contraceptive products.
I know that in our post-sexual revolution world that is an incredible statement to make, but if we look at the effects of contraception on our culture, my conclusions are not that surprising after all.
In 2000, The British Medical Journal reported that teens who ask for information about contraception actually have more unwanted pregnancies than those who do not.
Likewise, Janet Smith, a professor of bio-ethics, wrote in her book "Why Humanae Vitae Was Right" that over 80 percent of young women who have abortions have used contraceptives.
From this, we can conclude that not only are contraceptives highly ineffective at preventing unwanted pregnancies, but also that they increases the frequency of abortion.
Moreover, the reasons why most women have abortions are nearly identical to the reasons why women use contraceptive products.
The Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is decidedly pro-contraception, reports that three-fourths of women who abort say that they did so because having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities.
I have heard many who support abortion say that they would not support it if it were viewed merely as another contraceptive. But don't these statistics imply that this is in fact the case most of the time?
Even the U.S. Supreme Court endorses this view. In the 1992 decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court said "people ... for two decades of economic and social developments have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail."
Now that we have seen compelling reasons that suggest a link between the use of contraception and the increase in abortion, we ought to consider why such a link exists.
For one thing, contraception facilitates sex in cases where those involved are not prepared to raise children. If an unwanted pregnancy occurs in such a situation, abortion may be seen as the only way out.
So, increased contraception will not limit abortions, but in reality only increase their frequency by making the situations in which people turn to abortion more common.
Another reason for the link between contraception and abortion is that contraception creates a culture that devalues the dignity of human beings and in fact sees people as problems.
Think about it. If I use contraception to prevent having children, I am at least indirectly saying that babies are burdens, not blessings.
When I start to think this way, it is easy to want to get an abortion if contraceptives fail, since I have trained myself to not want children.
The problem stems from us not acting according to our deepest values. Most of us, I think, would say that people are more important than things, and that if there is a conflict we should put people first. But contraception creates the opposite mentality.
The values of contraception say that things are more important than people. The sad thing is that the values of contraception are for the most part not the values of those who use it.
The contraceptive mentality says that if there is a problem in taking care of a person, eliminate the person, not the problem.
At the heart of the matter is the notion that if it is difficult or even inconvenient to take care of a person than we should prevent that person's birth. But if for living persons we would try to solve the problem instead of trying to get rid of the person, why not take the same stance towards those who are yet to be conceived?
After all, any one of us might have been denied life because of contraception. I, for one, am very glad my parents made the sacrifice to bring me into the world, and I think we should offer the same opportunity to as many people as we can.
There is a clear link between the use of contraception and the practice of abortion.
Whether we are pro-life or pro-choice, we should agree that one of the best ways of limiting abortions is to explore avenues of limiting unwanted pregnancies other than contraception, such as the intensified promotion of abstinence and chastity.
(01/26/05 12:00pm)
I used to have a prejudice against popular culture. Experience had shown me far too often that popular things are sometimes not good things, whether it be in the realm of books, movies or television. Happily, I have since grown out of this rather narrow frame of mind and have come to realize that many new things are quite good, or, even if I find a great deal wrong with them, at least they contain something of merit, which can be very personally enriching.
So, when I get some free time to read, I try to spend some time perusing some of the newer and more popular books, both to see what is valuable in them and also to get a feel for the general climate of culture and society.
From looking through the bestsellers at Borders and reading a few, I believe I can see a trend developing. It seems that many new books have to do with helping a person find the purpose and meaning of life.
This trend is across the board, encompassing both secular and religious books. Two examples, which I have read and plan to comment on in this article, are "The Purpose Driven Life" by Rick Warren and "The 8th Habit" by Stephen Covey.
I should also note that these are authors who I might not be drawn to at first. In Warren's case, I am not Protestant, and in Covey's case, I generally have little respect for self-help books. Surprisingly, it turned out I was impressed with both.
"The Purpose Driven Life" is a Christian book that aims at helping the reader find his or her God-given purpose. It resembles other Christian books in its desire to help the reader develop a relationship with Christ, form good relationships with others and start evangelizing, but it is very unique in that its main theme is the often underemphasized Christian idea who all Christians, even those that are not involved in active ministry, have a purpose to fulfill, a mission from God. The meaning of our life is to find it and fulfill it to the best of our abilities.
Stephen Covey, the famous author of "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People," recently wrote a book on the same theme, a sequel very cleverly titled "The 8th Habit." "The 8th Habit" reads, "Finding your voice and helping others to find theirs." His main point is that human beings can only find their purpose or vocation, or, as he calls it, "voice," if they devote themselves to employing their talents to serve others.
By doing so, we can fulfill our potential to the fullest degree and live lives of greatness and contribution. If we do not do this, we will end up living mediocre, unfulfilled lives.
We find what we were created to do by beginning to serve the human needs that we see around us. He argues that nearly all historical figures who made a great contribution to the common good followed this model.
For instance, Mother Teresa never set out to be famous. She simply saw the human need in the poverty of Calcutta and felt called to help. She started by helping one person and this led to helping more. Soon, women inspired by her example began joining her, and now the religious order she founded is one of the largest in the world.
He also pointed out that our contribution does not need to be on a grand scale: someone who makes a great difference in the lives of their families, friends or coworkers should also be considered great.
I would also add that I believe anything we do can be done for others. Even if, for example, I am a mathematician who spends all of his time in research, I am still deeply involved with others.
For one, I rely and trust the research of other mathematicians, which gives me a base for developing my own theories, and I also construct ideas that will help others. So even a scholar who is mostly alone is, in a sense, working with and for others.
Moving on, both books put forward the belief that every person has a great purpose to fulfill, and fulfilling it is the meaning of his or life. This purpose, moreover, consists in serving human needs.
The fact that these books are so popular is an indication that Americans feel a great need to find some sort of purpose and meaning for their lives beyond themselves.
Both of these books, in a way, represent a new development. Sometimes books of this sort have a pronounced individualist mindset, which focuses purely on personal growth.
This is no surprise considering the value Americans often place on self-sufficiency. (I do not think this is a bad thing at all, since we must mature as persons before we can make any worthwhile contribution to others.)
But now we are seeing, I believe, a new philosophy emerging that seeks to link personal growth, whether it be on the spiritual or the human level, with contribution towards the common good.
Perhaps we can even say that this is the answer to many of the problems of the 20th century. Much of that century was plagued by two false philosophies. One was totalitarianism, which placed the common good, the good of the state, above the good of the individual, such as in a Soviet Five Year Plan.
The other was a highly individualistic mentality, in which, for some, personal interest was pursued at the expense of the common good, such as in the various business debacles of recent memory brought about by greed.
But here we see the two concepts linked together: people fulfill themselves and find their purpose not through personal indulgence, but through service to others.
If that is the case, than both the good of the individual and the need for the individual to contribute to the common good is taken into account, without either being devalued.
I also think we are seeing a new appreciation of the value of the individual. Many of us can probably agree that all people have a great worth. Therefore, they have certain personal rights that cannot be violated.
But this type of interpretation takes that a step further and asks us to believe that not only do people deserve certain rights, but also that each person is capable of making a contribution towards the common good, perhaps a great one.
I think this has been proved true by experience. We have all heard inspiring stories of people who came from terrible backgrounds, but who then turned their lives around and made a positive contribution to society.
Why not assume anyone can do this?
Perhaps what keeps people from fulfilling their potential is that we often assume they do not have any, and they begin to believe it themselves.
Perhaps we do not fulfill our own potential because no one has been able to see and communicate to us the capacity for good that we have in us.
At any rate, I admire the principles that I have seen in "The Purpose Driven Life" and "The 8th Habit," and I think the theme of the need for each person to selflessly contribute to the good of others is very important.
With so many difficulties today, the message is timely. It may be that only by using our talents in a selfless way can we solve the problems facing the world.
(11/17/04 12:00pm)
What do you do when there is nothing to do? What do you do when there are no more problems to solve, books to read or papers to write? Aristotle says that we work so that we may have leisure. Many people, no matter how much they love their classes or their job, are "working for the weekend."
Certainly, our free time and vacations are valuable commodities that we should greatly treasure. With this in mind, and looking ahead to Thanksgiving Break, I think it is timely to ponder how to best use our time away from work.
The most important thing we can do is take some time for personal reflection. Work, whether manual or intellectual, is a noble and beautiful thing. By doing our work well, we grow in maturity, exercise our creativity and help in the building up of society. Work also has its problems; sometimes it is to easy to get caught up in all the activity and forget about the values we hold most dear.
We should take some time in silence, looking deeply into our consciences, and ask ourselves: am I living the way I am supposed to live? Am I living as I really want to live? A good place to start is by asking ourselves whether we are truly happy.
Am I happy? Such a simple question, but how profound! How many people are really happy? To answer this question, we have to look beyond the surface of things. I have known many people who have seemed happy, but were in fact miserable.
How many people like getting drunk and hooking up? This brings pleasure which cannot satisfy because as time goes by it ceases to fulfill. To his dismay, any hedonist will soon discover a law of diminishing returns: the more he experiences a certain pleasure, the less pleasurable it becomes. He goes out in search of more and more pleasurable experiences until everything leaves him bored. Someone in such a situation cannot be happy. If that is the case, why go on living in such a way?
How many people enter unfulfilling romantic relationships? Their partner may be mean, insensitive and uncaring, but they do not break out of the demeaning situation. There are also other, less serious cases, in which a person knows that he is definitely not compatible with someone else, and could not see himself with her in the long term, yet continues to date her. Anyone in these situations cannot really be happy, so why should he or she stay in them?
How many people are addicted to work? To others, there is nothing obviously wrong, but for whatever reason in their obsession for work they fail to give their families and friends the attention they deserve. They even damage their health by not taking the recreation that they need. Such workaholics, as they are often called, cannot be happy, so why not take steps do something about it?
It is not for nothing that Mother Teresa called America the poorest nation on Earth. I could not agree more. I have encountered so many people who seemed reasonably content, but who on the inside were torn by tremendous despair.
All of us, to some extent or another, engage in self-destructive behavior that we halfway acknowledge but never work up the courage to confront. Our moments of leisure are ideal times in which to recognize the magnitude of our problems and make efforts to remedy them, or to decide to seek help if we cannot help ourselves.
I am sure someone is ready to accuse me of being something of a crapehanger. The holidays, after all, should be about rejoicing. But how can a man rejoice if he ignores the fact that his life is falling apart? Any such festivity must be rather superficial, like Nero playing the fiddle while Rome burns.
But once we have exorcised our inner demons, we can enjoy the good things Thanksgiving offers. For one, we should try to grow closer to our families. The holidays remind us of the centrality of family life. The most beautiful holiday movies are usually about loving families.
Truly, the only real joy in life comes not from selfishly following our own interests, but through loving those closest to us.
If we have neglected our families, it is time to spend much more time with them. Even if our family situation is not perfect, we can work on improving it. No matter what anyone else does, we can still love him or her, even if sometimes he or she seems unlovable. By doing so we will help foster love and joy within our families, and so long as we have that we will have found happiness and will not have to look elsewhere for it.
As a final note, I do not think a discussion of Thanksgiving would be complete without mentioning the One to whom we are giving thanks. Now do not get the wrong idea. I am not trying to impose my religion on anyone. I am mainly speaking to religious people.
For those of us who believe in God, Thanksgiving is a time to renew our relationship with Him. Leisure time is about refocusing on what is most important, and what could be more important than that?
I, for one, realize a need for change. In the past, I have not spent enough time with my family and not nearly enough time in prayer. With the advent of the holidays I will recommit myself to living a life in harmony with my deepest values, and I welcome everyone to join me.