TRUTH AND JUSTICE - BEING ALLOWED TO BELIEVE

I confess I am in a quandary. The question I seek to resolve, the quarry of my quandary is as elusive as finding gold at the bottom of a quarry. What is it about a human brain that prevents reason? By reason I mean sense, rationality or soundness of mind. The ability to deduce, from learning and observations, what is factual and real as opposed to fiction and fantasy. In addition, as a consequence of that education, to be able to make judgements which support reality and fact i.e. what is true.

 

In her speech to congress, in defence of her position as a congressional representative, Marjorie Taylor Greene stated that initially she was not political, but had many concerns. She said that she found someone she could support in Donald Trump, someone who reflected her concerns, and she presumably voted for him in 2016. She then went on to say, that as she looked deeper into certain matters, she came across QAnon and other theories and opinions. Then in 2018 she came to distrust the Government. She said a lot of American’s distrust our Government and that’s very sad. It should be noted that this was now two years into the Trump Presidency. What government did she distrust? She then went on to say that:

 

“I was allowed to believe things that weren’t true, and I would ask questions about them and talk about them, and that is absolutely what I regret, because if it weren’t for the Facebook posts and comments that I liked in 2018, I wouldn’t be standing here today and you couldn’t point a finger and accuse me of anything wrong because I’ve learnt a very good life that I’m proud of and my family’s proud of, my husband’s proud of, my children are proud of, that’s what my district elected me for”

 

She claimed that she was the first in her family to graduate from college. Did she learn how to think independently, or was she just allowed to believe things, whether they were true or false?

 

In her own disorganised way, she was trying to speak from her heart. She clearly felt she was making some sort of emotional appeal for understanding her personal desire to be a dedicated member of congress. Unfortunately, certain remarks attributed to her after the congressional vote to remove her from committees, such as ‘They don’t know how dumb they are’ to give me free time to raise funds for my own agendas, or words to that effect, making it clear that she continues to be allowed to believe things that are not true.

 

I come back however, to the matter of being allowed to believe. Who or what gives permission for anyone to believe anything? The authenticity of Facebook was brought into question. The presumption must be that what appears on a Facebook post is true. Therefore, the Facebook invitation to “like” or dislike has nothing to do with truth, but only approval or disapproval and not agree or disagree. Indeed, the internet is full of emoji’s and symbols inviting people to “like” something. Is this prevalence a method of seeking validation for an opinion or product, or a consumer research method of discovering what opinions or products the individual in question is likely to respond to and part with cash? Is there really a presumption that what appears on a screen, billboard, poster or over the airwaves the truth, and because of that presumption we are allowed to believe whatever is on offer? Has the reality culture so engrained us in the belief that “If it’s on TV, it must be true”? If it’s a government sponsored public announcement must it be true?

 

One would like to think that what our government purports to be true, is in fact true. There are certain institutions, scientific, educational and legal, that we are prone to accept as ‘telling the truth’. Government enquiries into matters deemed of public importance are expected to report on events with the truth. We are prone to accept their findings as truth; however, I would submit that education and observation teach us that none of the above is the case.

 

Senator Kamala Harris, before she became Vice President Elect, questioned future Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett over her views on Climate Change and other matters. The Justice effectively refused to answer stating that Climate Change is a “Very contentious matter of public debate” and she would not offer an opinion. It is only a matter of debate by the likes of Mr Trump who has never been interested in the science, indeed refuses to accept the facts. There is therefore, no real debate about the matter, only those few, who refuse to accept what is happening round the world, before their very eyes. There is a global consensus to try to deal with the problem. International committees have been formed.  Global conferences to deal with the problem have been initiated. By refusing to take it on, Justice Barrett is showing herself to be blind and ignorant of the science, and clearly not fit for her office. Is it just ambition that prevents her from accepting a simple truth? Is that what obscures reason from her brain, or is there a more sinister motive?

There is a rather lengthy video of Ms Harris speaking with Ms Barrett concerning the Affordable Care Act and a woman’s right to choose, which subjects were evaded by Ms Barrett.

It can be accessed here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3Vphk-apnE

 

The evasions and obfuscations of Ms Barrett to appear to be impartial and therefore judicial and open minded, smack more of her ambition than her openness to the needs of the American people. That is my biased opinion. There is nothing wrong with a Judge having views, even controversial opinions, so long as they adhere to the law, and the interpretation of law can sometimes be contrary to one’s personal views. It is a matter of being truly impartial. Justices swear an oath to that effect. It’s easy enough to say, but much harder to do, and I suspect anyone not prepared to admit that possibility by denying they have a view.

 

It seems to me clear that Ms Taylor Greene and Ms Barrett are the victims of an implacable ambition which veers away from truth and is beyond reason.  What effect their presence in the scheme of things will have, remains to be seen and heard. The various outlets of information for the myriads of theories that abound across the world have no strict adherence to truth.

 

So, my quandary remains. I still seek to know who or what allows us to believe things that are not true? What is it that staves off our brain from the ability to reason? I believe that there should be nothing in our brains that prevents us from reason. There should be nothing in our brain that allows us to presume or accept what an authority states to be true, without question, without reasoning the matter for ourselves. The idea of an open mind is paramount to open government and democracy.

 

The matter of getting at the simple truth is never an easy question. As Oscar Wilde’s Algernon says “The truth is rarely pure and never simple. Modern life would be very tedious if it were either, and modern literature a complete impossibility”