In Grandmother's Lap
                         Copyright 1987, R.M.P.J.

     There was a story in the paper recently that appalled me.  Some high
school kids in Florida were keeping journals as part of a school program
designed to prevent drug use by kids.  A woman who had previously borrowed
some of the teaching materials "borrowed" 18 journals and passed them
around the folks from her church--"she didn't know they were meant to be
private."  She and the people in her church apparently feel that this
program is linked (horrors!) to secular humanism, because it stresses
individual responsibility rather than accepting the revealed word, or
something.  They seem to want to get the goods on it so it can be
eliminated from the schools, despite the fact that it's voluntary and only
half the kids participate anyway.

     Is this country headed for a time when I am not allowed to refuse to
let by brother be my keeper?  Am I going to be forced to submit to someone
else's altruism, and abdicate responsibility for my own physical, social
and spiritual wellbeing to people who are sure they know what is best for
me because God (their  god) told them?  The last time that happened it hurt
a lot.

     But I honestly don't believe it's going to happen again.  I feel
strongly that this whole right-wing fundamentalist hysteria is a last-gasp
effort by those who feel that their whole perspective on life is terribly
threatened, and are trying to hold back the tide with a teaspoon.  Twenty
years will tell.  

     But this brings us to a very interesting question--isn't altruism a
good thing?  Shouldn't we live for others?

     My answer is no.  I believe very deeply and strongly that we are here
to learn all we can and grow as much as possible, not to help others avoid
getting on with their own growth by making their lives easy.  I also
believe in good manners and consideration for others, and in generating
positive rather than negative karma whenever possible.  But my
consideration is not based on deference, or thinking you're more important
than I am; it's based on the fact that if I treat you well I can expect you
to treat me well, and if you don't I can avoid you without wondering if
it's all my fault or feeling guilty or anxious.

     Frankly, the restatement of the Golden Rule in the New Testament
strikes me as a vast deterioration from the original.  "Do unto others as
you would have others do unto you" can easily be perverted by the literal-
minded into "I love chocolate so I'm going to feed you chocolate even
though you hate it and it makes you break out", instead of "I'd like you to
consider my tastes and wishes so I'm going to consider yours."  "Do not
unto others that which you would not wish done to you" seems a lot clearer
and more straightforward to me.

     We are not responsible for each other.  We are responsible for our own
decisions and actions, and for their consequences.  If I punch you in the
nose I'm responsible; if I insult you or sneer at you I'm responsible; if
you get envious, angry and depressed because I won a Nobel Prize I am not
responsible, nor would I be noble if I refused it to avoid upsetting you. 
That behavior would imply that you are weak and helpless, and discourage
rather than encourage your development, even if I never told you what I had
done.  If you scream at me or are rude to me I will hold you responsible
for those actions, and take what steps I need to protect myself against a
repetition of the unpleasantness, because my welfare and comfort are my
responsibility, not yours.  

     Nobody else can ever know what's best for me, because no one else can
be me.  Or you.  Or the weird lady in Florida.  But I have a hunch she
would have been far better off to sit in on the class as a student, and
then perhaps criticize it, than to make assumptions about others' welfare
and act on them.  What do you think?  I'd really like to know?

                                Blessed Be,
                             The Spinster Aunt