Of Segregation and Children of God

Photo by Samantha Gades on Unsplash

“I recognize that every person has a unique identity, that our shared humanity is precious, and that it is up to all of us to defend and protect the civic culture that unites us.”

That is a quote from the “Pro-Human Pledge” offered by the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR), a pledge to which all have been invited to subscribe.

I find this declaration consistent with my religion, principles founded on objective, eternal truth, taught by Jesus Christ before, during, and since His mortal ministry.  Scripture tells of a civilization in the ancient Americas that not only encouraged such a standard but achieved it and lived up to it for nearly 200 years.

The record of those ancient people affirms, “There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there . . . any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ . . .” (4 Nephi 1:17)  Distinction by the suffix “-ites” was the way that people had grouped and distinguished one another, as in “Josephites,” “Amlicites,” “Zoramites,” and so forth.  In their society, such distinctions of estrangement melted away into social unity.

This unity was achieved and maintained because, “there were no contentions and disputations among them.”  And how was that achieved?  Perhaps not due to the likely obsolescence of lawyers, but because, “every man did deal justly one with another.” (4 Nephi 1:2) 

To that there was a foundation as well.  This peaceful society was established following the personal ministry of the resurrected Jesus Christ to them.  One of His first teachings to this people was to end disputations and contention, “that such things should be done away.” (3 Nephi 11:30)  Embracing these teachings, the people ran out of causes of separation and division.

Recently, FAIR Board member, Angel Eduardo, wrote an insightful essay, “The legacy of Malcolm X should be change, not hatred,” published on the FAIR Substack.  In the essay, Eduardo traces a progression in the views of Malcolm X, beginning with a difficult childhood scarred by intolerance.  Taught intolerance, he propounded intolerance, including sharp racial separation.  Eduardo’s point in the essay is that Malcolm X’s life pattern was not, however, anger and hatred (though there was plenty of that), but rather constant learning and change. 

Near the end of his life Malcolm X argued, “I believe in recognizing every human being as a human being—neither white, black, brown, or red;” instead advocating “dealing with humanity as a family . . .”

And so we are, children of the same Heavenly Father.  If someone, who once felt so bitter, could by stages change to recognize the family of us all, dare we not encourage others?

Of Burgers-Fries and Excellence

Photo by Peter Dawn on Unsplash

My favorite local hamburger joint is the simply named “Burger Shack.”  The hamburgers are good, made to order, with an option for a gluten-free bun; prices are decent.  Where this joint completely outshines the crowded competition is that the fries are far and away the best around.

One might think that with a commonplace menu centered on burgers, fries, and milkshakes the fare could easily become mediocre.  There is plenty of that available in the surrounding culinary community.  The national mass-production chains cater to the market for mediocre.  They had occupied the so-so field for so long that it appeared that all the burger rivalry was solely among the giant mediocrities, working hard to find new ways to repackage and remarket the same thing, becoming more alike in their efforts to appear different.

Who knew that people—lots of people—could be attracted to excellence in burgers and fries?  A few daring souls made a go at the chance that there may be customer demand for more than mediocre.  The market allowed it and rewarded it.  Competition to rise above mediocre has become fierce, with customers benefitting from the choices offered.    

Not that I would forbid mediocrity.  Mediocrity is O.K., as far as it goes, but only O.K.  I am happy that there can be more.

Enjoying better burgers, pleased with better shoes, and glad for better dentists, I find the insistence on mediocrity and the outcry against excellence astonishing.  How frequently we encounter voices decrying competition, seeking to standardize everything by treating everything and everyone the same!  Is that what people really want?  We used to have a shelf full of trophies “won” by our children just for showing up.  We failed to convince the kids to take them to their own homes for display.

More astonishing is the assertion that celebration of mediocrity and condemnation of competition promote diversity.  The theory is that diversity cannot compete in a system that rewards excellence.  What is the alternative prescription for diversity from these levelers?  They demand removal of standards that applaud excellence in achievement or that recognize merit in performance.

Reality reveals opposite results.  This leveler ethic promotes either or both of two outcomes.  First, things tend toward the same as differences are discouraged; efforts that improve performance are placed at risk of suppression.  Second—alternatively or concomitantly—the levelers who rise above to be in charge of administering this doctrine decide recognition and advancement, and they do so based on whatever standard suits their fancy or is then in vogue.  Such standards tend to be unmeasurable, subject to whim, suiting the arbitrary caprice of the chief levelers.

In short, diversity is always in danger in the tyranny of mediocrity.  No one must be more beautiful, according to the day’s definition of beauty.

For a time the big burger chains, which initially arose by offering a better, excellent idea (until the idea became standardized) put the local mom and pop joints out of business.  Markets, though, have allowed competition to work its magic, tolerating room for some intrepid innovators to test customer interest in burger excellence.  Some succeed.

There comes the levelers’ claim that competition is inhuman, or at least unkind.  It supposedly disadvantages those who are not excellent, who are only mediocre.  Since not everyone can excel, this competition must be stopped.

That claim is inhuman and unkind.  People everywhere are mediocre or less than mediocre at some things, but each can do something better than someone else can.  The variety of talents and gifts is constantly amazing (and sometimes amusing).

If mediocrity standards are imposed, however will we discern the excellence that each has to offer?  Each person may be stymied from discovering what he or she is best at doing.  How does one find the divinity in his or her humanity, embedded in the unique gifts from God awaiting to be developed?  How many advances will be lost? We will be poorer for the loss.

I do not know how long it took the owners of Burger Shack to find out that they could offer an excellent product.  Perhaps they are still finding out.  While the year’s virus restrictions play to the advantages of the big, national firms, the last time I was at Burger Shack it was booming, even under the restrictions.  If allowed, people find a way.

%d bloggers like this: