Take a moment to think as you
read this, . . •
But first, recognize that I will not
be myself in this column. I will be
departing from the humorous side
that many of
you have grown
3 accustomed to.
I'm going
to be serious and
if you can’t
handle it—stop
reading now.
There’s a
holiday two days
, away called
“Thanksgiving.”
Thanksgiving is supposed to be a
holiday in which we give thanks for
the things we have in life.
However, for many people, the
holiday has become nothing more
than an excuse to get a few days off
from school, eat turkey and curse at
the TV during a multitude of football
games. *
Admit it. That’s how Thanksgiv
ing is perceived by many of us. But
there’s more to it than that. Just take
a look at the world around you.
When I was 10,1 pouted and
complained clear through Thanksgiv
ing dinner. The reason? There were
“whole” cranberries in the cranberry
sauce, instead of it being smooth and
U
For many people, the holiday has become
nothing more than an excuse to get a few
days off from school, eat turkey and curse
at the TV during a multitude of football
games.”
tart.
Even at that young age I was a
little ungrateful.
It's hard to look back and realize
the harsh reality that you lost the true
meaning of the holiday just as
everyone else was trying to teach it
to you.
Picture this:
It's a lonely Thanksgiving for a
tired homeless man outside the
student union.
Hes clinging to a cardboard sign
with a list of words written on it.
There are no comprehensible
sentences, just words like "cold, ”
"hungry, ” "tired, ” "donation ” and
"now. ”
The man seems to stare through
those who walk past him without
even glancing in his direction.
What has he to be thankful for?
That he’s alive? Begging so that he
can remain that way? Or that if he
does live, it will be a world of cold
—physically and in the minds of
those who keep hurriedly walking
past.
In our own homes on Thanksgiv
ing, we all sit at the dinner table with
turkey on our plates and smiles
etched on our faces. The shutters are
closed — nothing outside the home
matters for that moment. It’s just
family, friends and smiles all the way
around.
A voice calls out: “Eat that last
bite of turkey! There are children
starving in China!”
We don’t think twice about what
that means. We only shrug it off and
stuff the piece of turkey into our
mouths.
But there are people starving.
rhey’re thousands of miles away,
true, but they’re also outside your
family’s windows. Hidden behind the
shutters of ignorance.
Have our families done anything
to help them? Or do we all just
swallow the food and go on with the
festivities?
Remember this: When you
swallow that last piece of turkey, you
might feel something in your
stomach.
That’s guilt.
You can’t digest it, escape it or
conceal it for long. Sooner or later,
guilt finds you.
Maybe it will find you on your
death bed. Maybe when you swallow
another bite. Maybe you won’t feel it
at all.
But it’s there and I want you to «
know it—and remember it. Guilt is
in each of us — and so is the power
to do what is right. This means
helping others. We can give a little of
our own wealth to those who have
none.
We can give to those people who
cling onto pieces of cardboard out in
the cold—staring through our souls
as if they were made of ice.
Kerber is a sophomore news
editorial major and a Daily
Nebraskan columnist.
I Nick
L- -JJ ja vrirt-Wi' art" ™ »U?H<TC5EN> ■>
The government’s business
Keep your legislative nose out of my morality
Some people say the government
shouldn’t force morality on people.
. Others say the government needs a
' strong moral foundation.
The. implication in this ongoing
argument is that
either the
government
should have no
morals at all, or
it should impose
a strict, narrow
view of morality
on the people. It
seems that these
are the only two
available options, and neither is
particularly palatable.
However, there is a third option.
Allow me to illustrate with an
analogy:
Most people would agree that a
private business -— a local retail
business, few example—needs a
moral base in order to treat its
customers fairly. A business owner
must have some moral character,
including honesty and integrity, in
order to keep a good reputation
among his customers and the
community. A businessman with no
moral character cheats and defrauds
his customers, and soon finds himself
out of business as customers find a
more honest company to do business
with.
However, most people would also
agree that although the businessman
must have moral character, he does
not sell morality. He sells products.
He does not demand that his custom
ers agree with his religion or his
moral philosophies.
Likewise, our government and its
elected officials need a moral base in
order to treat the citizens fairly.
Principles such as honesty and
«
Although the government must have a
solid moral base, it has no business
legislating morality.”
integrity, as well as respect for justice
and individual rights are just as
important for a well-run government
as they are for a well-run business. A
government with no moral character
does not treat is citizens fairly. It
abuses their rights. Unfortunately, the
citizens’ only recourse against an
amoral or immoral government is to
rebel — either by voting (if the
government allows them to do so) or
by staging a revolution.
Although the government must
have a solid moral base, it has no
business legislating morality. The
government’s purpose is to legislate
justice — i.e., to protect the rights of
individual citizens. Without a moral
base, there is no way to carry out
such justice; but forcing a narrow,
inflexible set of morals on individual
citizens does not protect anyone’s
rights.
So in brief, business and govern
ment both need a moral base, The
proper purpose of business is to sell
products or services; the proper
purpose of government is to protect
our rights. The business does not sell
morality, and the government should
not legislate morality.
This still may seem contradictory.
After all, doesn’t the government
hqld citizens to a certain moral
standard in having laws to begin
with?
Obviously the answer is yes. By
protecting individual rights on the
moral basis of the rights to life,
liberty and property, the government
does espouse a moral standard that
creates certain parameters for what is
acceptable behavior.
However, the government’s
emphasis must be on protecting
rights. For example, when the
government punishes a thief, it is
primarily upholding the victim’s
moral right to his or her property. In
the process, it is punishing the thief
for violating that moral standard;
however, that is a necessary corollary
to the primary purpose of the
government, which is to uphold the
rights of the citizen.
By contrast, when our current
government punishes someone for
drinking a beer at the age of 20, it is
not acting properly. In that case, the
government is not upholding
anyone’s moral rights, since none are
being violated. But the government is
violating—or at least refusing to
protect—the 20-year-old’s moral
right to liberty—to live peaceably
as he or she sees fit, so long as he or
she does not tread on the rights of
others. Implicit in the government’s
action is an unjustifiable imposition
of a narrow, non-objective morality
on the 20-year-old.
Of course, it is possible to commit
a moral crime against yourself, so to
speak—for example, attempting
suicide, immoderate use of alcohol or
“illicit” drugs, or self-mutilation, all
of which cause great harm to a ;
person’s own mind and body.
However, none of these acts violate
anyone else’s moral rights, so the
government has no business legislat- ’
ing against these activities — , '
however morally reprehensible they
maybe.
You may believe that underage
drinking or drug use may make a
person more prone to criminal
behavior, which is a legitimate
observation; however, it is
government’s business only to
protect people’s rights and to punish
actual violations of these rights—
not potential violations. If someone
high on drugs commits aggravated
assault, punish him for aggravated
assault; but if he doesn’t violate
anyone else’s rights, the government
has no grounds to take action against
him.
It is clear in these cases that the v
government’s proper role is protector
of individual rights, and not arbiter
of all morality. The government is
only one cog in the great machine of
society. It should not be revered as a
moral instructor for children or a
cultural barometer or an instrument
of social change. Those roles should
be left to private citizens and
organizations. The government, with
its legal monopoly on the use of
force, should be limited only to its
proper role of protecting individual
rights.
Wiltgen is a junior broadcasting
and meteorology major and a
Daily Nebraskan columnist